Abstract
Abstract Sugarcane ( Saccharum spp.) represents the most valuable row crop in Louisiana. High levels of biomass production and extensive tillage have degraded portions of the state's alluvial soils used to grow sugarcane. In addition to sucrose, processing the crop generates excess bagasse each year, which can represent a disposal problem for sugar factories. However, converting the bagasse to biochar at nearby pyrolysis facilities may prove to be an economical means of improving degraded soils. The objective was to determine the impacts of low rates of biochar (<3.2 mt ha −1 ) on soil physical, chemical, and biological properties. Plant available nutrient levels were marginally impacted by biochar additions as the biochar exhibited a relatively low surface area and neutral pH. Bagasse‐derived biochar did not affect soil nitrate retention or leaching, and overall recovery was >86%. Biochar did not increase soil CO 2 evolution, indicating its stability as a soil carbon amendment. However, adding biochar with mineral nitrogen decreased CO 2 evolution, compared to biochar alone, indicating a negative priming effect. Soil moisture retention was minimally impacted by biochar. Cane yield, sucrose content, and sucrose yield were not statistically affected by applying biochar with or without starter fertilizer at planting. Overall, the results indicate that lower levels of bagasse‐derived biochar minimally impacted soil properties and crop yield; however, the biochar was stable in soil and may find utility as a carbon‐rich amendment should carbon credits prove to be an additional source of grower or land‐owner revenue.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar marginally affected plant available nutrient levels.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Plant available nutrient levels were marginally impacted by biochar additions”
t0“sugarcane bagasse‐derived biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar did not affect soil nitrate retention or leaching; recovery exceeded 86%.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- Bagasse‐derived biochare0
- Outcome
- soil nitrate retention or leachinge0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
- Value
- >86%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Bagasse‐derived biochar did not affect soil nitrate retention or leaching, and overall recovery was >86%.”
t0“sugarcane bagasse‐derived biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar did not increase soil carbon dioxide evolution.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Biochar did not increase soil CO 2 evolution”
t0“sugarcane bagasse‐derived biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding mineral nitrogen to biochar decreased soil carbon dioxide evolution versus biochar alone.
Verbatim
e0“adding biochar with mineral nitrogen decreased CO 2 evolution, compared to biochar alone”
t0“sugarcane bagasse‐derived biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar had minimal impact on soil moisture retention.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Soil moisture retention was minimally impacted by biochar.”
t0“sugarcane bagasse‐derived biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar with or without starter fertilizer did not significantly affect cane yield, sucrose content, or sucrose yield.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- biochar with or without starter fertilizer at plantinge0
- Outcome
- Cane yield, sucrose content, and sucrose yielde0
- Direction
- not statistically affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Cane yield, sucrose content, and sucrose yield were not statistically affected by applying biochar with or without starter fertilizer at planting.”
t0“sugarcane bagasse‐derived biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that bagasse biochar was stable in soil and may be useful as a carbon amendment if carbon credits provide revenue.
Verbatim
e0“the biochar was stable in soil and may find utility as a carbon‐rich amendment should carbon credits prove to be an additional source of grower or land‐owner revenue.”
t0“sugarcane bagasse‐derived biochar”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · quality: sugar starch · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results differ
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 91 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
100 papers more in this group
See all 104 papers →biochar · nutrient: content · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
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.