Background: Cancer patients are regarded as a highly vulnerable group in the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To date, the clinical characteristics of COVID-19-infected cancer patients remain largely unknown. Patients and methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we included cancer patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from three designated hospitals in Wuhan, China. Clinical data were collected from medical records from 13 January 2020 to 26 February 2020. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to assess the risk factors associated with severe events defined as a condition requiring admission to an intensive care unit, the use of mechanical ventilation, or death. Results: A total of 28 COVID-19-infected cancer patients were included; 17 (60.7%) patients were male. Median (interquartile range) age was 65.0 (56.0e70.0) years. Lung cancer was the most frequent cancer type (n ¼ 7; 25.0%). Eight (28.6%) patients were suspected to have hospital-associated transmission. The following clinical features were shown in our cohort: fever (n ¼ 23, 82.1%), dry cough (n ¼ 22, 81%), and dyspnoea (n ¼ 14, 50.0%), along with lymphopaenia (n ¼ 23, 82.1%), high level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (n ¼ 23, 82.1%), anaemia (n ¼ 21, 75.0%), and hypoproteinaemia (n ¼ 25, 89.3%). The common chest computed tomography (CT) findings were ground-glass opacity (n ¼ 21, 75.0%) and patchy consolidation (n ¼ 13, 46.3%). A total of 15 (53.6%) patients had severe events and the mortality rate was 28.6%. If the last antitumour treatment was within 14 days, it significantly increased the risk of developing severe events [hazard ratio (HR) ¼ 4.079, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.086e15.322, P ¼ 0.037]. Furthermore, patchy consolidation on CT on admission was associated with a higher risk of developing severe events (HR ¼ 5.438, 95% CI 1.498e19.748, P ¼ 0.010). Conclusions: Cancer patients show deteriorating conditions and poor outcomes from the COVID-19 infection. It is recommended that cancer patients receiving antitumour treatments should have vigorous screening for COVID-19 infection and should avoid treatments causing immunosuppression or have their dosages decreased in case of COVID-19 coinfection.

The added value of biochar when applied along with fertilizers, beyond that of the fertilizers themselves, has not been summarized. Focusing on direct comparisons between biochar additions (≤20 t ha−1) – separately considering the addition or not of inorganic fertilizers (IF) and/or organic amendments (OA) along with biochar – and two different controls (with and without the addition of IF and/or OA), we carried out a meta‐analysis to explain short‐term (1‐year) field responses in crop yield across different climates, soils, biochars and management practices worldwide. Compared with the non‐fertilized control, a 26% (CI: 15%–40%) increase in yield was observed with the use of IF only, whereas that of biochar along with IF caused a 48% (CI: 30%–70%) increase. Compared with the use of IF only, the addition of biochar along with IF caused a 15% (CI: 11%–19%) increase in yield, indicating that biochar was as effective as fertilizers in increasing crop yields when added in combination. The use of biochar alone did not increase crop yield regardless of the control considered. Whereas in the short term, liming may have partly contributed to the beneficial effect of biochar (>90% was plant‐derived) when added along with IF, a separate meta‐analysis – using those studies that reported crop yields for different years after a single biochar application – showed a 31% (CI: 17%–49%) increase in crop yield over time (≥ 3 years), which denotes the influence of biochar properties other than liming (i.e. an increase in CEC). Our results also suggest that biochar application rates > 10 t ha−1 do not contribute to greater crop yield (at least in the short term). Data limitations precluded identification of the influence of feedstock, production conditions or climatic conditions without bias. As the response of crop yield to biochar addition was less a result of climatic zones or soil type than fertilizer use (chiefly N additions), the choice of nutrient addition along with biochar should be priorities for future research and development regardless of the region.

No abstract

Understanding soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration is important to develop strategies to increase the SOC stock and, thereby, offset some of the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Although the capacity of soils to store SOC in a stable form is commonly attributed to the fine (clay + fine silt) fraction, the properties of the fine fraction that determine the SOC stabilization capacity are poorly known. The aim of this study was to develop an improved model to estimate the SOC stabilization capacity of Allophanic (Andisols) and non-Allophanic topsoils (0-15 cm) and, as a case study, to apply the model to predict the sequestration potential of pastoral soils across New Zealand. A quantile (90th) regression model, based on the specific surface area and extractable aluminium (pyrophosphate) content of soils, provided the best prediction of the upper limit of fine fraction carbon (FFC) (i.e. the stabilization capacity), but with different coefficients for Allophanic and non-Allophanic soils. The carbon (C) saturation deficit was estimated as the difference between the stabilization capacity of individual soils and their current C concentration. For long-term pastures, the mean saturation deficit of Allophanic soils (20.3 mg C g ) was greater than that of non-Allophanic soils (16.3 mg C g ). The saturation deficit of cropped soils was 1.14-1.89 times that of pasture soils. The sequestration potential of pasture soils ranged from 10 t C ha (Ultic soils) to 42 t C ha (Melanic soils). Although meeting the estimated national soil C sequestration potential (124 Mt C) is unrealistic, improved management practices targeted to those soils with the greatest sequestration potential could contribute significantly to off-setting New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions. As the first national-scale estimate of SOC sequestration potential that encompasses both Allophanic and non-Allophanic soils, this serves as an informative case study for the international community.