Biochar and its effects on soil properties and evapotranspiration: A sustainable solution for plant growth

Figures & data

Table 1. Impact of BC application on BD

Soil type	Initial pH	Duration	Study type	Plant	BC feedstock	Pyrolysis tempera-ture °C	Residence time in the reactor (min)	Application rate (%/Mg andt ha^−1)	BD (g cm^−3)	References
Sand	8.16	288 d	Laboratory		Wheat straw	600	60	0 1 3 5%	1.54 1.40^a 1.22^b 1.05^c	(Chen et al., 2018)
Sandy Loam	5.69	2 consecutive years	Field	Cocoyam	Hardwood	500	720	0 10 20 30 t ha^−1	1.59^a 1.38^b 1.20^c 0.91^d	(Adekiya et al., 2020)
Sand	8.33	2 years	Lysimeter	Wheat	Citrus trees		-	0 1.50 Mg ha^−1 S 5 Mg ha^−1 1.50 Mg ha^−1 S 5 Mg ha^−1	1.60* 1.57* 1.51* 1.47*	(EL-Gamal et al., 2020)
Clay Loam	7.9	70 days	Pot	Lentil	Rice husk	250–500	30–225	With fertilizer 0 0.4 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.3%	1.39^a 1.37^a 1.29^b 1.17^c 1.14^c 1.14^c	(Abrishamkesh et al., 2016)
Alkaline soil	8.25	5 months	Pot	Soybean	Corn straw	450	120	With fertilizer 0 2.5 5 10%	1.26^a 1.23^b 1.22^b 1.18^c	(Liu et al., 2020)
Clay	8.27	2 years	Lysine-ter		Citrus trees		-	0 1.50 Mg ha^−1 S 5 Mg ha^−1 1.50 Mg ha^−1 S 5 Mg ha^−1	1.22* 1.18* 1.15* 1.11*	(EL-Gamal et al., 2020)
Entic Halpudept	6.5	Field	4 months	Rice	Wheat straw	350–550	-	i. Without N 0 t ha^−1 10 t ha^−1 40 t ha^−1 ii. With N 0 t ha^−1 10 t ha^−1 40 t ha^−1	1.01^a 0.98^ab 0.89^c 0.99^ab 0.96^ab 0.89^c	(Zhang et al., 2010)

S: Sulfur, N: Nitrogen fertilizer, *:data are significantly different.

Table 2. Impact of BC application on TP

Soil type	Initial pH	Duration	Study type	Plant	BC feedstock	Pyrolysis temperature °C	Residence time in the reactor(min)	Application rate (%/Mg and t ha^−1)	Porosity (%)	References
Alkaline soil	8.25	5 months	Pot	Soybean	Corn straw	450	120	with inorganic fertilizer 0 2.5 5 10%	52.67^c 53.18^b 54.85^ab 55.35^a	(Liu et al., 2020)
Sand	8.27	2 years	Lysimeter		Citrus trees		-	0 1.50 Mg ha^−1 S 5 Mg ha^−1 1.50 Mg ha^−1 S +5 Mg ha^−1	39.62* 40.75* 43.02* 44.53*	(EL-Gamal et al., 2020)
Loamy sand		4 months	Incubation		Winter wheat and Miscanthus	300	15	0 0.5 1 2 4%	32.2 39.5^d 41.4^c 44.2^b 48.9^a	(Głąb et al., 2016)
Sandy Loam	5.69	2 consecutive years	Field	Cocoyam	Hardwood	500	720	0 10 20 30 t ha^−1	40.0^d 47.9^c 54.7^b 66.0^a	(Adekiya et al., 2020)
Silt loam	5.71	2 seasons	Field	Zea mays L.	Mixture of paper fiber sludge and cereal husks	550	30	Spring 0 10 20 t ha^−1 10+160 kg N ha^−1 20+160 kg N ha^−1	35.4^a 37.7^b 37.5^b 37.1^b 39.8^c	(Igaz et al., 2018)
Silt loam	5.71			Zea mays L.	Mixture of paper fiber sludge and cereal husks	550	30	Autumn 0 10 20 t ha^−1 10+160 kg N ha^−1 20+160 kg N ha^−1	38.4^b 37.7^ab 36.7^a 38.6^b 38.2^ab	(Igaz et al., 2018)
Clay	8.27	2 years	Lysimeter		Citrus trees		-	0 1.50 Mg ha^−1 S 5 Mg ha^−1 1.50 Mg ha^−1 S +5 Mg ha^−1	53.96* 55.47* 56.60* 58.11*	(EL-Gamal et al., 2020)

*data are significantly different.

Table 3. Impact of BC application on SAW

Soil type	Initial pH	Duration	Study type	Plant	BC feedstock	Pyrolysis temperature °C	Residence time in the reactor(min)	Application rate (%/t and Mg ha^−1)	SAW (v/v)	References
Sand	8.54	4 months	Laboratory		Cotton stalks	400	180	0 1 2 4 6%	0.0382^d 0.0397^cd 0.0406^c 0.0498^b 0.0522^a	(Shenghai et al., 2019)
Loamy sand		90 days	Pots	Vigna unguiculata (L.)	Chipped woody green waste	550	-	0 1 2%	0.224 0.239 0.262*	(Pudasaini et al., 2016)
Silty clay loam		6 years	Field	Vineyard	Walnut shell	900	-	Organic 0 10 t ha^−1 Conventional 0 10 t ha^−1	0.141^a 0.138^a 0.147^a 0.156^a	(Wang et al., 2019)
Clay loam		3 years	Field		Corn straw and peanut hulls		-	0 8 Mg ha^−1	10.6^b 13.7^a	(Ma et al., 2016)
Clay	8	180 d	Incubation		Sugarcane bagasse	800	120	0 1 3 5 10%	0.04^c 0.05^bc 0.06^b 0.08^ab 0.09^a	(Kameyama et al., 2016)

Table 4. Impact of BC application on an

Soil type	Initial pH	Duration	Study type	Plant	BC feedstock	Pyrolysis temperature °C	Application rate (%/Mg and t ha^−1)	AN (mg kg^−1)	References
Sandy loam	7.53	20 months	Pot	-	Forest logging residues	500	0 2 4%	81.63^d 109.85^bc 123.68^ab	(Zhou et al., 2019)
Sandy loam	5.27	4 years	Field	Maize and Soybean	Ponderosa pine wood	650	0–7.5 cm 0 10 Mg ha^−1 7.5–15 cm 0 10 Mg ha^−1	43930^b 34770^c 8270^a 5970^a	(Abagandura et al., 2021)
Sandy loam	8.50	90 days	Incubation		Conocarpus wood	400	0 1%	13.1^e 15.1^d	(El-Naggar et al., 2015)
Sandy loam	6.27	6 years	Field	Peanuts	Corn stalks	500	0 225 0.75 t ha^−1 +NPK 0.25 t ha^−1+NPK	46.5^d 70.1^c 74.6^bc 80.8^a 78.1^ab	(Gao et al., 2021)
Loam	7.05		Pot	Oryza sativa L	Rice husk	500	0 1%	60.90 61.83^ns	(Wen et al., 2022)
Loam	7.05		Pot	Oryza sativa L	Wood	500	0 1%	60.90 64.63*	(Wen et al., 2022)
Clay loam	5.93	4 years	Field	Maize and soybean	Ponderosa pinewood	650	0–7.5 cm 0 10 Mg ha^−1 7.5–15 cm 0 10 Mg ha^−1	5290^b 51030^b 16170^a 16270^a	(Abagandura et al., 2021)
Acid purple	5.52	110 days	Pot	Brassica campestris L.	Rice husk	500	0 0.8 2 4 %	70980^a 69620^a 61700^b 63880^b	(Li et al., 2021)
Weathered granites and gneisses	7.15	90 days	Pot	Wheat	Corn straw	400–500	0 0.5 1 2 4%	8.64^c 9.63^c 13.60^b 13.73^b 17.41^a	(Hu et al., 2023)
Black loessial loose texture	8.19	8 years	Field	Winter wheat	Corn straw	400	0 N0 0 N90 0 N120 20 t ha ^−1N90 20 t ha ^−1N120 PK	30.44^a 35.84^b 30.84^a 34.00^b 34.29^b	(Yuan et al., 2023)

Table 5. Impact of BC application on AP

Soil type	Initial pH	Period	Study type	Plant	BC feedstock	Pyrolysis temperature °C	Application rate (%/Mg ha^−1)	AP (mg kg^−1)	References
Clay loam	7.9	70 days	Pot	Lentil	Rice husk	250–500	With NPK 0 0.4, 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.3%	108.00^f 121.33^e 140.00^d 176.67^c 218.67^b 256.00^a	(Abrishamkesh et al., 2016)
Sandy loam	7.97	90 days	Incubation		Sheep manure	300 500	0 5 5%Without NPK	9.06^e 26.33^a 22.33^b	(Boostani et al., 2020)
Sandy loam	7.97	90 days	Incubation		Vermicompost	300 500	0 5 5%Without NPK	9.06e^e 16.66^c 17.16^e	(Boostani et al., 2020)
Acid purple	5.52	110 days	Pot	Brassica campestris L. cv.	Rice husk	500	0 0.8 2. 4 %	30.88^d 45.23^c 73.27^b 115.50^a	(Li et al., 2021)
Sandy loam	5.27	4 years	Field	Maize and Soybean	Ponderosa pinewood	650	0–7.5 cm 0 10 Mg ha^−1 7.5–15 cm 0 10 Mg ha^−1	66000^a 52670 ^a 18330^a 16000^a	(Abagandura et al., 2021)
Clay loam	5.03	4 years	Field	Maize and Soybean	Ponderosa pinewood	650	0–7.5 cm 0 10 Mg ha^−1 7.5–15 cm 0 10 Mg ha^−1	113000 ^a 99670^a 42000^a 21000^a	(Abagandura et al., 2021)
Sandy loam		20 months	Pot		Forest logging residues	500	Without NPK 0 2 4%	9.64^d 25.50^bc 24.65^bc	(Zhou et al., 2019)

Table 6. Impact of BC application on AK

Soil type	Initial pH	Duration	Study type	Plant	BC feedstock	Pyrolysis temperature °C	Application rate (%/t and Mg ha^−1)	AK (mg kg^−1)	References
Acid purple	5.52	110 days	Pot	Bras-sica cam-pestris L	Rice husk	500	0 0.8 2 4 %	30.88^d 45.23^c 73.27^b 115.50^a	(Li et al., 2021)
Sandy Loam	7.97	90 days	Incubation		Sheep manure	-300 500	0 5 5%Without NPK	172.3^g 2428.3^a 1906.2^b	(Boostani et al., 2020)
Sandy Loam	7.97	90 days	Incubation		Vermicompost	-300 500	0 5 5%Without NPK	172.3^g 486.7^d 440.2^e	(Boostani et al., 2020)
Clay Loam	7.9	70 days	Pot	Lentil	Rice husk	250–500	With NPK 0 0.4 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.3%	16.51^a 11.91^c 10.89^c 14.80^abc 15.42^ab 12.78^bc	(Abrishamkesh et al., 2016)
Ultisols	5.94	11 months	Field	Noodle rice	Cassava straw	300–500	135 kg N ha^−1 0 10 20 30 t ha^−1	237.53^d 253.67^c 275.26^ab 278.55^a	(Ali et al., 2022)
Ultisols	5.94	11 months	Field	Noodle rice	Cassava straw	300–500	180 kg N ha^−1 0 10 20 30 t ha^−1	253.32^c 269.66^b 277.37^a 277.71^a	(Ali et al., 2022)
Clay loam	5.03	4 years	Field	Maize and Soybean	Ponderosa pinewood	650	0–7.5 cm 0 10 Mg ha^−1 7.5–15 cm 0 10 Mg ha^−1	190670^a 157670 ^a 93330^a 95670^a	(Abagandura et al., 2021)

Table 7. Impact of BC application on soil pH

Soil type	Initial pH	Duration	Study type	Plant	BC feedstock	BC pH	Pyrolysis temperature °C	Application rate (%/Mg ha^−1)	pH	References
Loamy sand	4.68	254 days	Laboratory		Wheat straw	6.52	300	0 0.2 0.5 1 2%	4.65^a 4.70^bc 4.83^cd 4.97^de 5.29^gh	(Mierzwa-Hersztek et al., 2020)
Sandy loam	7.97	90 days	Incubation		Sheep manure	10.25 10.40	-300 500	0 5 5% Without NPK	8.01^e 8.15^c 8.37^a	(Boostani et al., 2020)
Sandy loam	7.97	90 days	Incubation		Vermicompost	9.78 10.50	-300 500	0 5 5% Without NPK	8.01^e 8.10^d 8.24 ^b	(Boostani et al., 2020)
Ultisol	4.31	90 days	Incubation		Canola straw Corn straw	6.48 9.39 10.76 9.37 10.77 11.32	0 300 500 700 300 500 700	1%	3.95^j 4.30^i 4.60^e 5.17^b 4.35^h 4.48^f 4.80^d	(Wan et al., 2013)
Sandy clay loam	5.10	90 days	Microcosm		Bamboo	10.26 10.35 10.57	350 500 700	2%	5.73^b 5.97^b 6.80^a 7.00^a	(Guo et al., 2020)
Loam	7.7	90 days	Incubation		Corn residue	8.17 9.19	350 500	0 1 2% 0 1 2%	7.60^d 7.63^cd 7.68^c 7.60^d 7.76^b 7.81^a	(Karimi et al., 2019)
Silt loam	6.37	28 days	Incubation		Chicken manure	9	500	0 15 Mg ha^−1 30 Mg ha^−1 (OCk) Under 300 ha^−1 urea	6.35^a 7.67^b 6.87^ab	(Widowati et al., 2011)
Silt loam	6.37	28 days	Incubation		Organic city waste (OCW)	9.6	500	0 15 Mg ha^−1 30 Mg ha^−1 (OCW) + 300 ha^−1 urea	6.35^a 7.70^b 6.73^ab	(Widowati et al., 2011)
loam	7.05	5 weeks	Pot		Rice husk		500	0 1%	7.10 7.27***	(Wen et al., 2022)
loam	7.05	5 weeks	Pot		Wood		500	0 1%	7.10 7.40***	(Wen et al., 2022)
Clay loam	5.03	4 years	Field	Maize and soybean	Ponderosa pinewood	9.3	650	0–7.5 cm 0 10 Mg ha^−1 7.5–15 cm 0 10 Mg ha^−1	5.03^a 5.30^a 5.67 ^a 5.93^a	(Abagandura et al., 2021)
Clayey	6.5cacl2	35 days	Pot	Raphanus sativus L	Sewage sludge	6	300	0 1 2 3 4 5%	6.20^a 6.18^a 6.48^a 6.55^a 6.45^a 6.35^a	(Sousa & Figueiredo, 2016)

OCK: Organic Chicken Manure, OCW: Organic city waste.

Table 8. Impact of BC application on soil pH in different climatic regions

Soil type	Climatic region	Initial pH	Duration	Study type	Plant	BC feedstock	BC pH	Pyrolysis temperature °C	Application rate (%/Mg ha^−1)	pH	References
Sandy Ultisol	Tropical and subtropical	5	180	Incubation		Straw Woodchips Waste water sludge	8.6 8.4 8.3	500	0 2 4 6% 2 4 6% 2 4 6%	5.01^b 4.95^c 5.01^b 5.15^a 5.67^c 6.51^b 7.34^a 5.24^b 5.31^a 5.29^ab	(Zong et al., 2015)
Silty clay loam	Tropical and subtropical	7.09	180	Incubation		Wood (WB) Rice husk (RHB)	7.79 8.86	600	0 2%WB 2%RHB	7.08b^C 7.14b^B 7.20b^A	(Lee et al., 2022)
Weathered sandy loam	Tropical		2 years	Field		Corn cobs	10.2	500–550	0 15 30 t ha^−1	5.4^c 6.2^b 6.6^a	(Amoakwah et al., 2022)
Highly weathered Silty clay	Humid subtropical and tropical	3.95	105	Incubation		Wood	9.94	700	0 2.5 5%	3.95^a 4.65^b 5.07^c	(Jien & Wang, 2013)
Sandy loam Ultisol	Humid tropics	3.7	1 season	Field	Maize	Cacao shell	9.8	400–500	0 5 15 t ha^−1	a b c^+	(Cornelissen et al., 2018)

+: increase.

Table 9. Impact of BC application on EC

Soil type	Initial pH	Duration	Study type	Plant	BC feedstock	Pyrolysis temperature °C	Application rate (%/Mg ha^−1)	EC (mS cm^−1)	References
Loamy sand	5.67	254 days	Laboratory		Wheat straw	300	0 0.2 0.5 1 2%	0.130^b 0.617^i 0.627^i 0.651^ij 0.748^j	(Mierzwa-Hersztek et al., 2020)
Sandy loam	7.97	90 days	Incubation		Sheep manure	-300 500	0 5 5% Without NPK	0.14^f 0.81 ^b 1.01 ^a	(Boostani et al., 2020)
Sandy loam	7.97	90 days	Incubation		Vermicompost	-300 500	0 5 5%Without NPK	0.14^f 0.63^c 0.81^b	(Boostani et al., 2020)
Sandy loam	5.27	4 years	Field	Maize and Soybean	Ponderosa pinewood	650	0–7.5 cm 0 10 Mg ha^−1 7.5–15 cm 0 10 Mg ha^−1	0.33^a 0.29^a 0.11^a 0.10 ^a	(Abagandura et al., 2021)
Clay loam	5.03	4 years	Field	Maize and Soybean	Ponderosa pinewood	650	0–7.5 cm 0 10 Mg ha^−1 7.5–15 cm 0 10 Mg ha^−1	0.57^a 0.54^a 0.24^a 0.22 ^a	(Abagandura et al., 2021)
Clay loam	7.9	70 days	Pot	Lentil	Rice husk	250–500	0 0.4 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.3%With NPK	0.593^bc 0.535^bc 0.498^c 0.543^bc 0.620^ab 0.695^a	(Abrishamkesh et al., 2016)

C: Controlled irrigation, F: Flooding irrigation.

Table 10. Recent results for BC use and ET (mm) on different plants and soils

Soil type	Initial pH	Study duration and type	Plant	BC Feedstock	Pyrolysis temperature °C	Estimation methods	Application rate	ET (mm)		Dry plant weight (g)	References
Sandy loam	5.7	40 days lysimeter columns	Soybean	Wood	760	Lysimeters (depth: 35 cm) were weighed) twice a week to determine water losses	Incorporated 0 10 25 50 t ha^−1 Top-dressed 0 10 25 50 t ha^−1	87.6^b 94.3^ab 91.9^ab 95.6^ab 87.6 99.4^a 102.2^a 104.0^a	2.7^bc 3.0^abc 3.18^ab 3.20^a 2.7^abc 2.7^abc 3.0^abc 2.5^c		(Reyes-Cabrera et al., 2017)
Sandy clay loam	5.12	Field 1 season	Maize	Maize-cob residue	500	Water balance equation	F0B0I100 F0B20I100 F300B20I100 F300B0I100 F300B20I80 F0B20I80 F300B0I80 F0B0I80	433.55^a 439.64^a 447.54^b 444.43^b 427.91^a 416.03^b 424.44^a 411.79^b	14.80^ab 14.80^ab 17.57^a 16.85^a 17.24^a 12.46^bc 15.74^ab 11.33^c		(Faloye et al., 2019)
Loamy	8.15	2 seasons Column	Brassica Campestris Var.	Poultry manure (chicken litters and straw)	450	Lysimeters (circular PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) tank of 30 cm diameter and 35 cm height)	Season-1 CK WB BC Season-2 CK WB BC	8.76^a 8.46^a 9.32^a 3.54^a 3.65^a 3.53^a	62.9^b 79.5^ab 87.4^a 44.45^b 61.95^ab 66.12^a		(Ahmed et al., 2019)
Sand	6.5	1 year Column	Winter wheat	Wheat straw	730	Based on changes in water content by PR2 probe 120°	2017 Control 1%	100^a 116^a	65.8^a 89^a		(Bruun et al., 2022)
Sand	6.5	2 years Column	Winter wheat	Wheat straw	730	Based on changes in water content by PR2 probe 120°	2018 Control 1%	100^a 133^a	37.5^a 118^b		(Bruun et al., 2022)
Sandy loam	8.3	2 consecutive seasons	Spring wheat	Maize straw	500	Calculated through the differences in water storage	2015 Control 50 kg(N) ha^−1 15 t ha^−1 B+50 kg(N) ha^−1 4.5 t ha^−1straw+50 kg(N) ha^−1	218.72^a 217.92^a 200.24^a 203.59^a	-		(Yeboah et al., 2016)

CK: no biochar and no fertilization, BC: biochar 20 t ha⁻¹and fertilization 300 kg N ha⁻¹, WB: fertilization without biochar addition, FIT: Irrigation percentage, F300B20: 300 kg ha⁻¹ fertilizer + 20 t ha⁻¹ biochar, F0B0: No Fertilizer + No Biochar, F0B20: No Fertilizer + 20 t ha-1, F300B0: 300 kg ha⁻¹ + no biochar, F0: No Fertilizer, B0: No Biochar, I100: 100%Full Irrigation, B20: 20 t ha⁻¹ of Biochar, I80: 80% irrigation, I60: 60% irrigation, F300: 300 kg ha⁻¹.

Chen, C., Wang, R., Shang, J., Liu, K., Irshad, M. K., Hu, K., & Arthur, E. (2018). Effect of biochar application on hydraulic properties of Sandy Soil under dry and wet conditions. Vadose Zone Journal, 17(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2018.05.0101

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Adekiya, A. O., Agbede, T. M., Olayanju, A., Ejue, W. S., Adekanye, T. A., Adenusi, T. T., & Ayeni, J. F. (2020). Effect of biochar on soil properties, soil loss, and cocoyam yield on a tropical Sandy Loam Alfisol. Scientific World Journal, 2020, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9391630

 Google Scholar

EL-Gamal, A., K, G. B., & E-K, N. E. (2020). In: IMPACT of SULPHUR and BIOCHAR APPLICATIONS on SOIL PROPERTIES and PRODUCTIONS of WHEAT and SOYBEAN YIELDS in SOILS HAVING TEXTURE (p. 256). Menoufia Journal of Soil Sciences.

 Google Scholar

Abrishamkesh, S., Gorji, M., Asadi, H., GH, B.-M., & P, A. A. (2016). Effects of rice husk biochar application on the properties of alkaline soil and lentil growth. Plant Soil Environment, 61(11), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.17221/117/2015-pse

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu, D., Feng, Z., Zhu, H., Yu, L., Yang, K., Yu, S., Zhang, Y., & Guo, W. (2020). Effects of corn straw biochar application on Soybean growth and alkaline soil properties. BioResources, 15(1), 1463–1481. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.15.1.1463-1481

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, A., Cui, L., Pan, G., Li, L., Hussain, Q., Zhang, X., Zheng, J., & Crowley, D. (2010). Effect of biochar amendment on yield and methane and nitrous oxide emissions from a rice paddy from Tai Lake Plain, China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 139(4), 469–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.09.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Głąb, T., Palmowska, J., Zaleski, T., & Gondek, K. (2016). Effect of biochar application on soil hydrological properties and physical quality of Sandy soil. Geoderma, 281, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.06.028

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Igaz, D., Šimanský, V., Horák, J., Kondrlová, E., Domanová, J., Rodný, M., & Buchkina, N. P. (2018). Can a single dose of biochar affect selected soil physical and chemical characteristics? Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics, 66(4), 421–428. https://doi.org/10.2478/johh-2018-0034

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shenghai, P. U., Guangyong, L. I., TANG, G., ZHANG, Y., Wanli, X. U., Pan, L. I., FENG, G., & DING, F. (2019). Effects of biochar on water Movement Characteri Tics in Sandy soil under drip irrigation. Journal of Arid Land, 11(5), 740–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-019-0106-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pudasaini, K., Walsh, K. B., Ashwath, N., & Bhattarai, T. (2016). Effects of biochar addition on Plant available water of a loamy sandy soil and consequences on cowpea growth. Acta horticulturae, (1112), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.2016.1112.48

 Google Scholar

Wang, D., Li, C., Parikh, S. J., & Scow, K. M. (2019). Impact of biochar on water retention of two agricultural soils – a multi-scale analysis. Geoderma, 340, 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.01.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ma, N., Zhang, L., Zhang, Y., Yang, L., Yu, C., & Yin, G. (2016). Biochar Improves soil Aggregate Stability and water availability in a mollisol after three years of field application. PLoS One, 11(5), 11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154091

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kameyama, K., Miyamoto, T., Iwata, Y., & Shiono, T. (2016). Effects of biochar produced from sugarcane bagasse at different pyrolysis temperatures on water retention of a calcaric dark red soil. Soil Science, 181, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1097/SS.0000000000000123

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhou, Z., Gao, T., Zwieten, L., Zhu, Q., Yan, T., Xue, J., & Wu, Y. (2019). Soil microbial community structure shifts induced by Biochar and Biochar-based fertilizer amendment to karst calcareous soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 0(2), 398–408. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2018.08.029

 Google Scholar

Abagandura, G. O., Bansal, S., Karsteter, A., & Kumar, S. (2021). Soil greenhouse gas emissions, organic carbon and crop yield following Pinewood biochar and biochar–manure applications at eroded and depositional landscape positions: A field trial in. Soil Use Manag. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12760

 Google Scholar

El-Naggar, A. H., Usman, A. R. A., Al-Omran, A., Ok, Y. S., Ahmad, M., & Al-Wabel, M. I. (2015). Carbon mineralization and nutrient availability in calcareous sandy soils amended with Woody Waste Biochar. Chemosphere, 138, 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.05.052

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gao, M., Yang, J., Liu, C., Gu, B., Han, M., Li, J., Li, N., Liu, N., An, N., Dai, J., Liu, X., & Han, X. (2021). Effects of long-term biochar and biochar-based fertilizer application on brown earth soil bacterial communities. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 309, 107285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107285

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wen, Z., Chen, Y., Liu, Z., & Meng, J. (2022). Biochar and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi stimulate rice root growth strategy and soil nutrient availability. European Journal of Soil Biology, 113, 103448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2022.103448

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Li, S., Li, Z., Feng, X., Zhou, F., Wang, J., & Li, Y. (2021). Effects of biochar additions on the soil chemical properties, bacterial community structure and rape growth in an acid purple soil. Plant Soil Environment, 67, 121–129. https://doi.org/10.17221/390/2020-pse

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hu, T., Wei, J., Du, L., Chen, J., & Zhang, J. (2023). The effect of biochar on nitrogen availability and bacterial community in farmland. Annals of Microbiology, 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13213-022-01708-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yuan, M., Zhu, X., Sun, H., Song, J., Li, C., Shen, Y., & Li, S. (2023). The addition of biochar and nitrogen alters the microbial community and their cooccurrence network by affecting soil properties. Chemosphere, 312, 137101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.137101

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Boostani, H. R., Hardie, A. G., & Najafi-Ghiri, M. (2020). Effect of organic residues and their derived biochars on the zinc and copper chemical fractions and some chemical properties of a calcareous soil. Communications in Soil Science & Plant Analysis, 51(13), 1725–1735. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2020.1798986

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Li, H., Meng, J., Liu, Z. Q., Lan, Y., Yang, X., Huang, Y. W., He, T. Y., & Chen, W. F. (2021). Effects of biochar on N2O emission in denitrification pathway from Paddy Soil: A drying incubation study. Science of the Total Environment, 787, 147591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147591

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ali, I., Adnan, M., Ullah, S., Zhao, Q., Iqbal, A., He, L., Cheng, F., Muhammad, I., Ahmad, S., & Wei, S. (2022). Biochar combined with nitrogen fertilizer: A practical approach for increasing the biomass digestibility and yield of Rice and Promoting Food and Energy security. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining Biofpr, 16(5), 1304–1318. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2334

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mierzwa-Hersztek, M., Wolny-Koładka, K., Gondek, K., Gałązka, A., Of C of B, G. K., & Microbiocenotic Composition, N. (2020). Dehydrogenase activity index and chemical properties of Sandy Soil. Waste Biomass Valorization, 11(8), 3911–3923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-019-00757-z

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wan, Q., Yuan, J.-H., Xu, R.-K., & Li, X.-H. (2013). Pyrolysis temperature influences ameliorating effects of biochars on acidic soil. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 21(4), 2486–2495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-2183-y

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guo, K., Zhao, Y., Liu, Y., Chen, J., Wu, Q., Ruan, Y., Li, S., Shi, J., Zhao, L., & Sun, X. (2020). Pyrolysis temperature of biochar affects ecoenzymatic stoichiometry and microbial nutrient-use efficiency in a bamboo forest soil.2020. Geoderma [Internet, 363(114162), 114162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.114162

 Google Scholar

Karimi, A., Moezzi, A., Chorom, M., & Enayatizamir, N. (2019). Application of biochar changed the status of nutrients and biological activity in a calcareous soil. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 20(2), 450–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-019-00129-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Widowati, U. W., Soehono, L. A., & Guritno, B. (2011). Effect of biochar on the release and loss of nitrogen from urea fertilization. Journal of Agriculture and Food Technology, 1(7), 127–132. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=ece21fbf50c6af235050b1d65687d92532974cbf

 Google Scholar

Sousa, A. A. T. C., & Figueiredo, C. C. (2016). Sewage sludge biochar: Effects on soil fertility and growth of radish. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, 32, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/01448765.2015.1093545

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zong, Y., Xiao, Q., & Lu, S. (2015). Acidity, water retention, and mechanical physical quality of a strongly acidic ultisol amended with biochars derived from different feedstocks. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 16(1), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-015-1187-2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee, M.-H., Lin, H.-H., & Jien, S.-H. (2022). Effects of biochar application on vegetation growth, cover, and erosion potential in sloped cultivated soil derived from mudstone. Processes (Basel), 10(2), 306. Internet. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10020306

 Google Scholar

Amoakwah, E., Arthur, E., Frimpong, K. A., Lorenz, N., Rahman, M. A., Nziguheba, G., & Islam, K. R. (2022). Biochar amendment impacts on microbial community structures and biological and enzyme activities in a weathered tropical sandy loam. Applied Soil Ecology, 172(104364), 104364. Internet. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2021.104364

 Google Scholar

Jien, S.-H., & Wang, C.-S. (2013). Effects of biochar on soil properties and erosion potential in a highly weathered soil. Catena, 110, 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2013.06.021

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cornelissen, G., Jubaedah, N., NL, H., SE, M., V, S., & L M, J. (2018). Fading positive effect of biochar on crop yield and soil acidity during five growth seasons in an Indonesian Ultisol. Science of the Total Environment, 634, 561–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.380

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reyes-Cabrera, J., Leon, R. G., Erickson, J. E., Silveira, M. L., Rowland, D. L., & Morgan, K. T. (2017). Biochar changes shoot growth and root distribution of soybean during early vegetative stages. Crop Science, 57, 454–461. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2016.01.0075

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Faloye, O. T., Alatise, M. O., Ajayi, A. E., & Ewulo, B. S. (2019). Effects of biochar and Inor-Ganic Fertiliser applications on growth, yield and water use efficiency of maize under deficit irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 217, 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.02.044

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ahmed, R., Li, Y., Mao, L., Xu, C., Lin, W., Ahmed, S., & On MNL, A. W. (2019). Moisture content, and evapotranspiration after 15N urea fertilization for vegetable crop. Agronomy, 9(6), 331–. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9060331

 Google Scholar

Bruun, E. W., Müller-Stöver, D., Pedersen, B. N., Hansen, L. V., & Petersen, C. T. (2022). Ash and biochar amendment of coarse sandy soil for growing crops under drought conditions. Soil Use and Management, 38(2), 1280–1292. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12783

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yeboah, S., Zhang, R., Cai, L., Li, L., Xie, J., Luo, Z., & Antille, D. L. (2016). Soil water content and photosynthetic capacity of Spring wheat as affected by soil application of nitrogen-enriched biochar in a semiarid environment. Photosynthetica, 55(3), 532–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11099-016-0672-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar