Paper · 2024 · BMC Plant Biology

Biochar enhances the growth and physiological characteristics of Medicago sativa, Amaranthus caudatus and Zea mays in saline soils

Ghulam Murtaza; Muhammad Rizwan; Muhammad Usman; et al.

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
36
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Biochar is a promising solution to alleviate the negative impacts of salinity stress on agricultural production. Biochar derived from food waste effect was investigated on three plant species, Medicago sativa, Amaranthus caudatus, and Zea mays, under saline environments. The results showed that biochar improved significantly the height by 30%, fresh weight of shoot by 35% and root by 45% of all three species compared to control (saline soil without biochar adding), as well as enhanced their photosynthetic pigments and enzyme activities in soil. This positive effect varied significantly between the 3 plants highlighting the importance of the plant-biochar interactions. Thus, the application of biochar is a promising solution to enhance the growth, root morphology, and physiological characteristics of plants under salt-induced stress.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Biochar increased height by 30% across the three species relative to saline controls.

Taxon
Medicago sativa, Amaranthus caudatus, and Zea maysAmaranthus caudatusMedicago sativaZea mayse0
Treatment
biochare1
Outcome
heighte1
Direction
improvede1
Value
30%e1
Comparator
control (saline soil without biochar adding)e1
Setting
saline environmentse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Amaranthus caudatus
Amaranthus caudatus · TaxonTubifex · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Biochar derived from food waste effect was investigated on three plant species, Medicago sativa, Amaranthus caudatus, and Zea mays, under saline environments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 113–271 · show in text ↑
e1

“biochar improved significantly the height by 30%, fresh weight of shoot by 35% and root by 45% of all three species compared to control (saline soil without biochar adding)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 296–468 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Biochar increased shoot fresh weight by 35% across the three species.

Taxon
Medicago sativa, Amaranthus caudatus, and Zea maysAmaranthus caudatusMedicago sativaZea mayse0
Treatment
biochare1
Outcome
fresh weight of shoote1
Direction
improvede1
Value
35%e1
Comparator
control (saline soil without biochar adding)e1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Amaranthus caudatus
Amaranthus caudatus · TaxonTubifex · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Medicago sativa, Amaranthus caudatus, and Zea mays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 193–243 · show in text ↑
e1

“biochar improved significantly the height by 30%, fresh weight of shoot by 35% and root by 45% of all three species compared to control (saline soil without biochar adding)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 296–468 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Biochar increased root fresh weight by 45% across the three species.

Taxon
Medicago sativa, Amaranthus caudatus, and Zea maysAmaranthus caudatusMedicago sativaZea mayse0
Treatment
biochare1
Outcome
fresh weight of shoot by 35% and roote1
Direction
improvede1
Value
45%e1
Comparator
control (saline soil without biochar adding)e1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Amaranthus caudatus
Amaranthus caudatus · TaxonTubifex · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Medicago sativa, Amaranthus caudatus, and Zea mays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 193–243 · show in text ↑
e1

“biochar improved significantly the height by 30%, fresh weight of shoot by 35% and root by 45% of all three species compared to control (saline soil without biochar adding)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 296–468 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biochar enhanced photosynthetic pigments across the three species.

Taxon
Medicago sativa, Amaranthus caudatus, and Zea maysAmaranthus caudatusMedicago sativaZea mayse0
Treatment
biochare1
Outcome
photosynthetic pigmentse1
Direction
enhancede1
Comparator
control (saline soil without biochar adding)e1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Amaranthus caudatus
Amaranthus caudatus · TaxonTubifex · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Medicago sativa, Amaranthus caudatus, and Zea mays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 193–243 · show in text ↑
e1

“biochar improved significantly the height by 30%, fresh weight of shoot by 35% and root by 45% of all three species compared to control (saline soil without biochar adding), as well as enhanced their photosynthetic pigments and enzyme activities in soil.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 296–550 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biochar enhanced soil enzyme activities.

Taxon
Medicago sativa, Amaranthus caudatus, and Zea maysAmaranthus caudatusMedicago sativaZea mayse0
Treatment
biochare1
Outcome
enzyme activities in soile1
Direction
enhancede1
Comparator
control (saline soil without biochar adding)e1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Amaranthus caudatus
Amaranthus caudatus · TaxonTubifex · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Medicago sativa, Amaranthus caudatus, and Zea mays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 193–243 · show in text ↑
e1

“biochar improved significantly the height by 30%, fresh weight of shoot by 35% and root by 45% of all three species compared to control (saline soil without biochar adding), as well as enhanced their photosynthetic pigments and enzyme activities in soil.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 296–550 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmixedsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The biochar benefit differed significantly among the three plant species.

Taxon
Medicago sativa, Amaranthus caudatus, and Zea maysAmaranthus caudatusMedicago sativaZea mayse0
Outcome
positive effecte1
Direction
variede1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Amaranthus caudatus
Amaranthus caudatus · TaxonTubifex · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Medicago sativa, Amaranthus caudatus, and Zea mays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 193–243 · show in text ↑
e1

“This positive effect varied significantly between the 3 plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 551–613 · show in text ↑

biochar · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

27 papers: 25 positive, 2 negative or no effect

24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

23 papers more in this group

See all 27 papers →

biochar · physiology: photosynthesis · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

biochar · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

190 papers: 180 positive, 10 negative or no effect

179 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

186 papers more in this group

See all 190 papers →

biochar · growth · Amaranthus caudatus (amaranth)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

biochar · soil: biology · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

biochar · growth · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree

17 papers: 17 positive, 0 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 papers →

biochar · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

20 papers: 20 positive, 0 negative or no effect

19 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

16 papers more in this group

See all 20 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.