Effects of biochar application on root traits: a meta‐analysis

Xiang, Yangzhou; Deng, Qi; Duan, Honglang; Guo, Ying

doi:10.1111/gcbb.12449

Cited by 252 publications

(161 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

141

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Results for Terminalia amazonia show a 22% and 88% increase for BC1 and BC1 + F treatments when compared to control and F treatments, respectively. These results are in accordance with the meta-analysis from Xiang et al [52], who observed an overall increase in root biomass of 32% after biochar application. Plants with a more robust root system are expected to perform better over time and to show higher resistance to drought in comparison to plants with a less robust root system.…”

Section: Plant Growth and Developmentsupporting

confidence: 92%

Biochar Effects on Two Tropical Tree Species and Its Potential as a Tool for Reforestation

Lefebvre¹,

Román-Dañobeytia

Soete

et al. 2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Highlights: We find that biochar plus fertilizer has synergistic and positive effects on seedling growth and robustness, but slightly lowers early seedling survival. Biochar plus fertilizer has the potential to greatly decrease costs associated with afforestation as compared to traditional fertilization and gives better results. Background and Objectives: Biochar can improve soil fertility and plant yield in crops. However, there is little information regarding the effects of biochar on trees, even though reforestation/afforestation projects are increasing and are often unsuccessful due to soil fertility limitations. This study aims to increase knowledge of biochar use as a reforestation tool. Materials and Methods: We measured survival and growth in an early ((Guazuma crinita Mart. [n = 240])) and a late (Terminalia amazonia (J.F. Gmel.) Exell. [n = 240]) successional species under 6 different biochar treatments in a 6-month nursery experiment. Results: (i) Survival was highest in the 1 t/ha biochar treatment, while treatments containing fertilizers or biochar at 5 t/ha lowered the survival rate of both species compared to the control; (ii) simultaneous addition of biochar and fertilizer lead to significant increases in height, diameter, total number of leaves, and aboveground and belowground biomass of both species as compared to other treatments; (iii) biochar treatment containing 1 t/ha with and without fertilizer showed significantly better results than applications of 5 t/ha; and (iv) Guazuma crinita responded more strongly to treatments containing biochar and fertilizers compared to Terminalia amazonia, which is suggestive of greater synergetic effects of biochar and fertilizer addition on early successional tree species. Conclusions: Applying biochar and fertilizer is synergistic and outperforms any single treatment, as well as the control, in terms of plant performance. This case study suggests that biochar can greatly improve reforestation/afforestation projects by increasing plant performance while substantially reducing fertilizer and labor maintenance costs. Field experiments and testing of additional species is needed to generalize the findings.

show abstract

Section: Plant Growth and Developmentsupporting

confidence: 92%

Biochar Effects on Two Tropical Tree Species and Its Potential as a Tool for Reforestation

Lefebvre¹,

Román-Dañobeytia

Soete

et al. 2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The weight given to each study was calculated as the inverse of variance. A weighted ln( R *) and a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated from the individual ln( R ) by giving greater weight ( w ) to study estimates which had greater precision (lower v ) (Xiang et al, 2017):

w = 1 / ν

\ln (R *) = \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{K} w_{i} \ln (R_{i})}{\sum_{i = 1}^{K} w_{i}}

S [\ln (R *)] = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\sum_{i = 1}^{K} w_{i}}}

95 % CI=ln (R^{★}) \pm 1.96 S [\ln (R^{★})]

where K is the number of studies in the meta‐analysis, w i is the weight for each i th study, and ln( R i ) is the effect size for each i th study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Non-English-language publications and conference proceedings were excluded. Data on wheat yield were obtained from the tables and texts of the selected papers, and some data were extracted from figures by using the GetData Graph Digitizer (Xiang et al, 2017).…”

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The weight given to each study was calculated as the inverse of variance. A weighted ln(R*) and a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated from the individual ln(R) by giving greater weight (w) to study estimates which had greater precision (lower v) (Xiang et al, 2017):…”

Section: Calculating Effect Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our analysis showed that in response to CRR, the rotation patterns of rice-wheat and soybean-wheat led to greater increase in yield and less variation compared with monoculture. The high yield response of soybean-wheat rotation likely results from the increased root nodulation and efficient N fixation during soybean growth (Xiang et al, 2017). The high yield response of rice-wheat rotation may be due to the adequate soil moisture content during rice growth.…”

Section: Wheat Yield Under Monoculture or Rotationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Yield Responses of Wheat to Crop Residue Returning in China: A Meta‐Analysis

Kang

Yin

et al. 2019

Crop Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crop residue returning (CRR) is known to improve the soil environment and thus increase crop production. However, the impacts of CRR on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yield have been contrary at times due to the differences in climatic conditions, soil traits, and management practices. These effects were evaluated using 351 paired observations published in 161 papers comprising studies conducted in 19 provinces (autonomous regions) of China. No publication bias or extreme values were found in the data, indicating that the analysis results are highly reliable. Compared with the practice of no crop residue returning (NCRR), the practice of CRR increased wheat yield significantly, on average by 8.29%, and proved more beneficial in Northwest China and in regions with average annual precipitation of 200 to 400 mm, average annual temperatures >11°C, sandy loam soil, and rotation with legumes (soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]–wheat and pea [Pisum sativum L.]–wheat). The following aspects of CRR and crop management conferred greater benefits in yield: continuing the practice for 3 to 6 yr (compared with 1–2, 7–10, and ≥11 yr), using the residues at 3 to 6 t ha−1 (compared with <3, 6–9, and > 9 t ha−1), chopped straw (compared with intact straw), rainfed conditions (compared with irrigated conditions), and applying N at 200 to 300 kg ha−1 (compared with <100, 100–200, and >300 kg ha−1). The yield increase was significantly higher when the residues were returned in the form of mulch (12.56%) and for spring wheat (11.90%) than plowing them back into soil (4.53%) and for winter wheat (7.09%). The meta‐analysis thus confirms the benefits of CRR in higher wheat yields in China and also suggests that the benefits of CRR are site specific.

show abstract

Biochar Amendments in Soils and Heavy Metal Tolerance in Crop Plants

Medyńska‐Juraszek,

Jadhav

2023

Heavy Metal Toxicity and Tolerance in Plants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of biochar application on root traits: a meta‐analysis

Cited by 252 publications

References 66 publications

Biochar Effects on Two Tropical Tree Species and Its Potential as a Tool for Reforestation

Biochar Effects on Two Tropical Tree Species and Its Potential as a Tool for Reforestation

Yield Responses of Wheat to Crop Residue Returning in China: A Meta‐Analysis

Biochar Amendments in Soils and Heavy Metal Tolerance in Crop Plants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About