Abstract
Abstract The application of biochar in agriculture is a developing means to improve soil water retention, fertility, and crop yield. The present work focuses on biochar preparation from mixed vegetable and fruit wastes, using cauliflower, cabbage, banana peels, corn leaves, and corn cobs. The biochar produced at 400 °C was applied to the soil as an amendment to observe the qualitative changes of soil quality, plant growth, and water retention capacity of the soil based on screening in a previous study. Pot experiments were conducted at a laboratory scale having 0%, 2%, and 6% biochar mixed with sand. Each pot was sown with seeds of chickpeas ( Cicer arietinum L. ) and monitored over 60 days. Two biochar application rates improved soil quality by increasing soil porosity from 49.3 to ≥ 53.4%, more than doubling cation exchange capacity to ≥ 21.1 cmolc.kg −1 , providing a small reduction in bulk density of approximately 10% and decreasing electrical conductivity of the extract by at least 40% in comparison to control condition. The biochar application also increased key soil nutrients K, Mn, S, and P by a factor of 2–9 times. Application of biochar at 2% and 6% improved water retention from 55 to 77 and 91 mL respectively over the study and, more importantly, more than doubled the biomass yield for the same water application. The lower biochar application rate of 2% led to more germinated seeds ( p = 0.0001), leaves ( p = 0.0001), flowers, and fruiting chickpeas than the control condition. The 6% biochar application rate slightly improved plant height ( p = 0.01) and provided a small reduction in water loss compared with the 2% biochar. Both biochar loadings increased the root and shoot biomass ( p = 0.005) and nutrient content of the shoot and root biomass, particularly K, P, and S ( p = 0.0001). This study demonstrates that biochar application at 2–6% is an effective means to increase chickpea yield and reduce water stress. Given small differences in performance within this application range, 2% application is recommended. The study establishes valorization of cellulose rich food waste in the form of biochar as a potential method for positive soil management and increased agricultural productivity in arid environments.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar increased soil porosity.
- Taxon
- chickpeas
Cicer arietinume1 - Treatment
- Two biochar application ratese0
- Outcome
- soil porositye0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Value
- 49.3 to ≥ 53.4%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two biochar application rates improved soil quality by increasing soil porosity from 49.3 to ≥ 53.4%”
t0“chickpea plants”
e1“Each pot was sown with seeds of chickpeas ( Cicer arietinum L. )”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar more than doubled cation exchange capacity.
- Taxon
- chickpeasCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- biochart0
- Outcome
- cation exchange capacitye0
- Direction
- doublinge0
- Value
- ≥ 21.1 cmolc.kg −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“more than doubling cation exchange capacity to ≥ 21.1 cmolc.kg −1”
t0“biochar from food waste: a sustainable amendment to reduce water stress and improve the growth of chickpea plants”
e1“Each pot was sown with seeds of chickpeas ( Cicer arietinum L. )”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar reduced bulk density.
- Taxon
- chickpea plantsCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- biochart0
- Outcome
- bulk densitye0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- approximately 10%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“providing a small reduction in bulk density of approximately 10%”
t0“biochar from food waste: a sustainable amendment to reduce water stress and improve the growth of chickpea plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar decreased extract electrical conductivity.
- Taxon
- chickpea plantsCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- biochart0
- Outcome
- electrical conductivity of the extracte0
- Direction
- decreasinge0
- Value
- at least 40%e0
- Comparator
- control conditione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreasing electrical conductivity of the extract by at least 40% in comparison to control condition”
t0“biochar from food waste: a sustainable amendment to reduce water stress and improve the growth of chickpea plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar increased soil K, Mn, S and P.
- Taxon
- chickpea plantsCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- biochar applicatione0
- Outcome
- soil nutrients K, Mn, S, and Pe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 2–9 timese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The biochar application also increased key soil nutrients K, Mn, S, and P by a factor of 2–9 times”
t0“biochar from food waste: a sustainable amendment to reduce water stress and improve the growth of chickpea plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Two percent biochar improved water retention to 77 mL.
- Taxon
- chickpea plantsCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- biochar at 2%e0
- Outcome
- water retentione0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 77e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of biochar at 2% and 6% improved water retention from 55 to 77 and 91 mL respectively”
t0“biochar from food waste: a sustainable amendment to reduce water stress and improve the growth of chickpea plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Six percent biochar improved water retention to 91 mL.
- Taxon
- chickpea plantsCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- biochar at 2% and 6%e0
- Outcome
- water retentione0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 91 mLe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of biochar at 2% and 6% improved water retention from 55 to 77 and 91 mL respectively”
t0“biochar from food waste: a sustainable amendment to reduce water stress and improve the growth of chickpea plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar more than doubled biomass yield at the same water application.
- Taxon
- chickpea plantsCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- biochart0
- Outcome
- biomass yielde0
- Direction
- doublede0
- Value
- more than doublede0
- Qualifier
- same water applicatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“more than doubled the biomass yield for the same water application”
t0“biochar from food waste: a sustainable amendment to reduce water stress and improve the growth of chickpea plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Two percent biochar increased germinated seeds and leaves, flowers, and fruiting chickpeas.
- Taxon
- chickpeasCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- biochar application rate of 2%e0
- Outcome
- germinated seedse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- control conditione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The lower biochar application rate of 2% led to more germinated seeds ( p = 0.0001), leaves ( p = 0.0001), flowers, and fruiting chickpeas than the control condition”
e1“Each pot was sown with seeds of chickpeas ( Cicer arietinum L. )”
Claim · model-written summary
Six percent biochar slightly improved plant height.
- Taxon
- chickpea plantsCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- 6% biochar application ratee0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 6% biochar application rate slightly improved plant height ( p = 0.01)”
t0“chickpea plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Six percent biochar reduced water loss relative to two percent biochar.
- Taxon
- chickpea plantsCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- 6% biochar application ratee1
- Outcome
- water losse0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Comparator
- 2% biochare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“provided a small reduction in water loss compared with the 2% biochar”
t0“chickpea plants”
t1“chickpea plants”
e1“The 6% biochar application rate slightly improved plant height ( p = 0.01)”
Claim · model-written summary
Both biochar loadings increased root and shoot biomass.
- Taxon
- chickpea plantsCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Both biochar loadingse0
- Outcome
- root and shoot biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both biochar loadings increased the root and shoot biomass ( p = 0.005)”
t0“chickpea plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Both biochar loadings increased K, P and S in shoot and root biomass.
- Taxon
- chickpea plantsCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Both biochar loadingse1
- Outcome
- nutrient content of the shoot and root biomasse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“nutrient content of the shoot and root biomass, particularly K, P, and S ( p = 0.0001)”
t0“chickpea plants”
t1“chickpea plants”
e1“Both biochar loadings increased the root and shoot biomass ( p = 0.005)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend 2% biochar application.
- Taxon
- chickpea plantsCicer arietinumt0
- Outcome
- 2% applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Given small differences in performance within this application range, 2% application is recommended”
t0“chickpea plants”
The same questions in other papers
biochar · soil: chemistry · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →biochar · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →biochar · physiology: water · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
biochar · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →biochar · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
9 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 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.