Biol Fertil Soils (2014) 50:1035–1045

DOI 10.1007/s00374-014-0921-z

ORIGINAL PAPER

Plant growth responses to biochar addition: an Australian

soils perspective
Lynne M. Macdonald & Mark Farrell &
Lukas Van Zwieten & Evelyn S. Krull

Received: 16 February 2014 / Revised: 17 April 2014 / Accepted: 24 April 2014 / Published online: 13 May 2014
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Abstract The use of biochar as an agricultural amendment Keywords Charcoal . Cereal . Dry-land cropping . Soil
has attracted much attention owing to its potential to improve constraints . Liming . Black carbon
soil condition and plant growth; however, production out-
comes are often uncertain. Although soil type is a major driver
of plant productivity, there are relatively few biochar studies Introduction
that directly compare plant growth responses across a range of
soil types. We tested the wheat growth response to biochar The application of biochar to agricultural soils continues to
derived from poultry litter and from wheat straw applied at 1, attract interest as a potential tool to sequester C, mitigate
5 and 10 t ha−1 (approximately 0.13, 0.67 and 1.33 % w/w) in greenhouse gas emissions (Woolf et al. 2010; Gurwick et al.
four soils representing major agricultural regions in Australia: 2013; Van Zwieten et al. 2013; 2014) and/or to improve plant
an acidic arenosol (Western Australian cereal belt), an acidic productivity (Jeffery et al. 2011; Kookana et al. 2011; Barrow
rhodic ferralsol (Northern New South Wales), a neutral 2012; Spokas et al. 2012). As a soil amendment, biochar has
vertisol (Queensland cropping) and an alkaline haplic calcisol both direct and indirect effects on soil parameters that influ-
(Eyre Peninsula in South Australia). In the neutral vertisol, ence nutrient fate in terrestrial environments. Chemical effects
where plant growth was vigorous in the control treatments, include the direct provision of macronutrients (N, P, K and Ca)
biochar had little impact, whereas in the alkaline calcisol, there and micronutrients (Mg, Zn) (Wang et al. 2012; Vassilev et al.
was a small significant increase in shoot biomass at high 2013) and altered pH, redox, cation exchange capacity (CEC)
(10 t ha−1) application rates. Plant growth responses in the and surface reactivity/sorption (Joseph et al. 2010; Silber et al.
acidic soils were most evident but demonstrated a strong 2010). Physical effects include modified pore structure, sur-
contrast to one another. In the acidic arenosol, negative growth face area and bulk density (Ventura et al. 2012; Herath et al.
impact correlated with increasing electrical conductivity, 2013; Lei and Zhang 2013), leading to altered water and gas
while in the acidic ferralsol a small rate-dependent increase dynamics (Castaldi et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2012; Saarnio et al.
in pH correlated with relatively large gains in biomass, possi- 2013). Both physical and chemical changes to the soil habitat
bly due to improved phosphorus nutrition and alleviated Al lead to altered biological function and nutrient fate (Namgay
toxicity. Moving towards effective integration of biochar as a et al. 2010; Farrell et al. 2013; 2014; Gueerena et al. 2013) and
management tool will not only require stratification based on to the composition and function of the microbial community
soil types, but wider consideration of the main plant produc- (Steinbeiss et al. 2009; Lehmann et al. 2012; Ducey et al.
tion constraints, such as pH, pertinent to a particular system. 2013; Farrell et al. 2013; Rousk et al. 2013 Song et al. 2014).
Despite growing interest, wider adoption of biochar appli-
L. M. Macdonald (*) : M. Farrell : E. S. Krull
cation is in part hampered by the unpredictable nature of plant
CSIRO Land and Water/Sustainable Agricultural Flagship, Waite growth response across different systems. As with many ag-
Road, Urrbrae, SA 5064, Australia ricultural practices including conventional liming (Haynes
e-mail: Lynne.macdonald@csiro.au 1982) and organic management (Ryan et al. 2004), biochar
is reported to result in positive, negative and neutral effects on
L. V. Zwieten
NSW Department of Primary Industries, 1243 Bruxner Highway, productivity (Jeffery et al. 2011). Direct comparison of plant
Wollongbar, NSW 2477, Australia growth outcomes is often difficult due to the wide variation in
1036 Biol Fertil Soils (2014) 50:1035–1045

countless experimental parameters including the particular America where climates have a pronounced dry season; and
biochar used (feedstock and pyrolysis conditions), the studied (iv) an alkaline haplic calcisol (high in carbonate) widespread
plant system (annual/perennial, grain, pasture, vegetable etc.) in arid and semi-arid (sub)tropics in both the northern and
and the growth resources provided (soil type, nutrient avail- southern hemisphere. These soils represent a wide range of
ability, moisture, temperature etc). Several studies have com- pH, with two acidic (acidic arenosol and acidic ferralsol), one
pared the relative impact of different types of biochar (feed- near neutral (neutral vertisol), and one alkaline (alkaline
stock and/or temperature) within a particular production sys- calcisol) soil type. We hypothesised that biochar would: (a)
tem (Novak et al. 2009; Schomberg et al. 2012), and have growth benefits in the two acidic soil types due to
Rajkovich et al. (2012) has demonstrated eight times more biochar-associated liming effects; (b) have little impact on
variation in growth (corn grown in an alfisol) owing to biochar plant growth in the near neutral soil; and (c) exacerbate pH-
feedstock type compared with pyrolysis temperature. There is related nutrient problems in the highly alkaline calcisol. Our
a growing body of data describing the physicochemical vari- secondary hypothesis was that the PL biochar would have
ability of biochar based on feedstock and pyrolysis conditions greater impact on plant growth compared with the WS biochar
(Cantrell et al. 2012; Kloss et al. 2012; Schimmelpfennig and due to a higher nutrient content.
Glaser 2012; Mukome et al. 2013), which provides a valuable
resource to support targeted use based on desirable properties
suitable to address specific constraints. Materials and methods
Recent reviews and meta-analyses generally conclude that
biochar is more likely to be effective in enhancing plant Experimental design, soils and biochar
growth in acidic compared with alkaline soil types, that
manure- and grass-based biochar are more effective than The four contrasting soils were sourced from across Australia:
wood-based biochars, but that clear rate-dependent responses an acidic ardic arenosol from Wongan Hills, Western Austra-
and modes of action are often difficult to identify (Atkinson lia; an acidic rhodic ferralsol from Wollongbar, New South
et al. 2010; Jeffery et al. 2011; Biederman and Harpole 2012; Wales; a neutral pellic vertisol from Warwick, Queensland;
Crane-Droesch et al. 2013). While meta-analysis is able to and an alkaline haplic calcisol from Port Kenny, South Aus-
highlight general trends in the published data, there is ac- tralia. Herein, the soils are referred to as an acidic arenosol, an
knowledgement that the high degree of variability in study acidic ferralsol, a neutral vertisol,and an alkaline calcisol. A
parameters makes it difficult to identify the biochar character- large composite soil sample was collected from the top
istics that drive plant response and that our mechanistic un- 200 mm of the respective field locations, air dried (40 °C),
derstanding is still limited (Spokas et al. 2012; Jeffery et al. coarse sieved (<4 mm) and thoroughly mixed before use in the
2011). pot trial. The maximum water holding capacity (MWHC) was
Soil type is one of the most important factors that influence determined on a subsample as the amount of water retained in
plant productivity, driving the availability of both nutrients the soil (10 g) following saturation and a 30-min drainage
and water. However, despite being a major driver in plant period (Dane and Topp 2002). The field site locations and soil
growth and microbial function, there are relatively few studies descriptions are reported in Table 1.
that allow the direct comparison of biochar performance The biochars used in this study were produced at 450 °C
across a range of soil types. The impact of biochar on cycling from poultry litter (PL) and from wheat straw (WS) feedstock
of soil organic matter in a wide range of soils has demonstrat- in a Pyrochar300 continuous reactor with a mean residence
ed differential effects (Zimmerman et al. 2011), and Joseph time of 20 minutes (Pacific Pyrolysis Pty. Ltd., Somersby,
et al. (2010) call for suitable experiments combining a variety NSW, Australia). The PL feedstock was a mixture of chicken
of biochar types and soil conditions to improve our mecha- manure and wood chip bedding material and the WS feed-
nistic understanding of how biochar impacts soil functions. stock was dry Triticum aestivum straw with a small compo-
We aimed to determine the impact of a poultry litter (PL) nent of seed husk and leaf material. The two biochars differed
biochar and a wheat straw (WS) biochar on plant growth in in chemical composition (analysed according to Krull et al.
four contrasting soil types that not only represent major agri- 2012) where the PL biochar contained more nutrients (P, Ca,
cultural soils in Australia but are widespread across the globe. Mg, S, Cu, Mn, Mo and Zn) and Na, and the WS biochar was
Classified according to FAO WRB, these included: (i) an higher in C content, retained more water, was more alkaline
acidic aridic arenosol (coarse-textured sand) typical of Central and had higher CEC (Table 2).
and Western Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central Biochar was added to each soil (1.5 kg soil pot−1) at rates
China; (ii) an acidic rhodic ferralsol (highly weathered mineral equivalent to 1, 5 and 10 t ha−1 (approximately 0.13, 0.67 and
soil) common to tropical areas of South Asia, South America 1.33 %, w/w) and mixed through the soil thoroughly before
and Africa; (iii) a neutral vertisol (clay-rich soil), covering vast packing into polypropylene pots (175 mm diameter, 2.8 L
areas of Australia, India, north-east Africa and Southern Latin capacity) at bulk densities similar to that of the field of origin
Biol Fertil Soils (2014) 50:1035–1045 1037

Table 1 Description of the four agricultural soil types used in the pot trial (MWHC), cation exchange capacity (CEC), the typical production con-
study, including FAO classification, dominant characteristics including straints and the originating location
dominant mineralogy, soil pH, maximum water holding capacity

Soil Dominant characteristics pH MWHC (%) CEC Typical production system Origin, State
classification and dominant constraint (longitude, latitude)

Aridic arenosol Coarse-textured quartz- Acidic 35.4 3.6 Typical of western Australian wheat Wongan Hills, WA
dominated sand belt with low nutrient content, (30° 89′ S, 116° 72′ E)
retention, and water retention
Rhodic ferralsol Fine-textured, iron-rich Acidic 60.4 19.0 Typical of broad-acre rotational Wollongbar, NSW
soil with kaolinite, cropping, with low phosphorous (28° 29′ S, 153° 14′ E)
gibbsite and goethite availability and high (99,100 mg/kg)
mineralogy aluminium content
Pellic vertisol Cracking clay (>30 %) Neutral 69.6 44.0 Typically of productive semi-arid Warwick, QLD
dominated by smectite dry-land agriculture of the region (28° 12′ S, 150° 06′ E)
and feldspar including wheat, cotton and sorghum.
Hard setting when dry, sticky when
wet, these soils pose physical
challenges to agriculture
Haplic calcisol Fine-textured alkaline Alkaline 61.4 22.0 Typical of mixed cropping rotations Port Kenny, SA
sand dominated by including grain cropping and mixed (33° 14′ S, 134° 72′ E)
calcite pasture. Phosphorus limitation, wetability
and moisture retention pose major challenges

(acidic arenosol, 1.4 cm3; acidic ferralsol, 1.0 cm3; neutral recovered, washed, dried (60 °C) and weighed. All reported
vertisol, 1.2 cm3; and alkaline calcisol, 1.2 cm3). Four repli- plant biomasses are on a per-pot basis (three plants).
cates were included for each treatment, including the un-
amended controls. Pots were watered to 60 % of their maxi- Soil analysis
mum water holding capacity, and wheat (T. aestivum L. var.
Wyalkatchem) seeds (three per pot) were sown at 30 mm Total organic C (TOC) and total N (TN) were analysed by dry
depth. The pot trial was conducted in a controlled growth combustion (2000-CNS, Leco Australia Pty. Ltd., Castle Hill,
environment (Conviron growth chamber, E15 series) with NSW, Australia). Where carbonate was present (i.e. for the
12 h of daylight at 22 °C and 9 h of dark at 10 °C and with alkaline calcisol) samples were analysed after acid (1 M HCl,
a progressive ramping (1.5 h) at dusk and dawn. Prepared pots 40 °C) pretreatment to remove carbonates before deriving the
were distributed in the growth chamber in a randomised block TOC content. Soil pH (Denver Instrument Model 25) and
(four) design. A regular watering regime was implemented electrical conductivity (CDM 210) were determined on the
twice weekly to minimise water stress, where soils were same soil slurry following 1 h shaking in water (1:5
brought to 60 % of their maximum water holding capacity soil/solution) and a 20-min settling period.
by weight. Plants were supplemented with 5 ml Ruakura
nutrient solution (Smith et al. 1983) twice weekly for the first Data analysis
3 weeks following germination and once weekly thereafter.
Watering was ceased at the onset of senescence (124 days after Plant biomass data was used to calculate the mean response
germination) before harvest of mature wheat plants ratio (RR) of each biochar treatment relative to the unamended
(136 days). The harvested plants were separated into grain control. The RR, defined as the natural logarithm of the ratio
and shoot material, oven dried (60 °C) and weights recorded. of biomass production in a given biochar treatment over its
Soils were destructively sampled, and the root material respective zero-biochar control (ln(biomass b i o c h a r /

Table 2 Chemical characteristics of the two studied biochars including C content, maximum water holding capacity (MWHC), pH, acid neutralising
capacity (ANC), cation exchange capacity (CEC), electrical conductivity (EC), Na and macro-/micronutrient content

Biochar C (%) MWHC (%) pH ANC CEC EC (mScm−1) Na (mg/kg) Macronutrients (g/kg) Micronutrients (mg/kg)
(CaCO3 eq) (meq+100 g−1)
N P K Ca Mg S Cu Fe Mn Mo Zn Ni

Poultry litter 38.3 180 7.7 9.1 18.1 5.2 2,592 20 9 10 25 3 3 57 2,695 265 5 238 8
Wheat straw 53.1 287 8.4 9.3 23.7 9.2 382 22 33 24 4 2 2 8 2,439 162 1 36 5
1038 Biol Fertil Soils (2014) 50:1035–1045

2.0
biomasscontrol)), ensures that variability in the ratios denomi-
1.5
nator has no greater influence than the variability in the
numerator (Hedges et al. 1999). Thus, RRs indicate no change 1.0
from the control (0), increased biomass (positive ratio), or 0.5
decreased biomass (negative ratio). As the RR are calculated
0.0
based on the treatment average, they are presented without
-0.5
standard errors. Interpretation of the significance of plant
response is based on statistical analysis of the base biomass data.
Plant biomass and soil chemical data were analysed by 2.0

permutational ANOVA (PERMANOVA, PRIMER-E) with 1.5

Monte Carlo sampling, and where ‘biochar’ and ‘rate’ were
1.0
fixed factors and ‘block’ was a random factor (Anderson et al.
0.5
2008). The PERMANOVA approach has the advantage that it
is not compromised by unbalanced design such as that 0.0

resulting from having a smaller control population (n=4) -0.5

compared to aggregated treatment populations (e.g. +PL
biochar, n=12; rate, n=8). All PRIMER analysis was based 2.0
on Euclidean distance matrices following data normalisation
1.5
within the PRIMER statistical package.
1.0

0.5
Results 0.0

-0.5
Plant growth in biochar amended soils
-1.0

The plant responses (biomass on harvest) to biochar addition

were highly dependent on soil type, with positive, negative
and neutral biomass responses demonstrated across the con-
Fig. 1 Wheat biomass response ratios of shoot (a), root (b), and grain (c)
trasting soil types (Fig. 1). grown in one of four soils (acidic arenosol, acidic ferralsol, neutral
In the acidic arenosol, plant response to both biochar types vertisol and alkaline calcisol) amended with poultry litter (PL) or wheat
demonstrated nonlinear trends with application rate (Fig. 1). straw biochar (WS) a at 1, 5 and 10 t ha−1 application rates. Response
Total plant biomass was significantly (P<0.001) lower at high ratios were defined as the natural logarithm of the ratio of biomass
production in a given biochar treatment over its respective zero-biochar
application rates, having strongest impact on shoot production control. The supporting base data, parameter variation and statistical
(P<0.001), but also evident in grain yield (P<0.01) and root analysis are provided in Table 3
biomass (P<0.05; Table 3).
By contrast, biochar application resulted in a strong posi-
tive rate-dependent impact on plant growth in the acidic biochar carbon added (Table 4). The trend was less clear with
ferralsol (Fig. 1). A significant (P<0.01) interaction between total soil N content demonstrating significantly (P<0.001)
biochar and rate indicated that the magnitude of the growth higher TN in the acidic arenosol and acidic ferralsol amended
stimulation was greater in the PL biochar compared with WS with high rates of PL and WS biochar, a significant rate-
biochar, with greater shoot, root and grain biomass produced dependent (P<0.05) increase in the alkaline calcisol amended
under high rates of PL compared with WS biochar (Table 3). with WC biochar (not evident under PL biochar), and had no
Biochar application to the neutral vertisol had no impact on significant effect in the neutral vertisol. Olsen P content
plant growth (Fig. 1) with biomass production vigorous in all followed a significant (P<0.01) rate-dependent increase in
treatments (Table 3). In the alkaline calcisol, positive plant all soil types and was significantly higher in the acidic
response trends were evident with biochar addition (Fig. 1), arenosol and the neutral vertisol amended with PL compared
but variability was high and biomass production was not with WS biochar.
significantly altered (Table 3). The soil pH was significantly influenced by biochar addi-
tions in the acidic arenosol, acidic ferralsol and alkaline
Soil chemistry in biochar amended soils calcisol but not in the neutral vertisol. The largest pH differ-
ences (>0.6 pH units) were reported in the acidic arenosol
The C content of the biochar-amended soils followed a rate- under WS biochar with smaller changes (~0.4 pH units) under
dependent (P<0.001) increase consistent with the amount of PL biochar additions (Table 4). Although of much smaller
Biol Fertil Soils (2014) 50:1035–1045 1039

Table 3 Plant biomass parameters (shoot, root, grain and total biomass) of wheat grown in contrasting soils amended with poultry-litter (PL) biochar or
wheat straw (WS) biochar at 1, 5 and 10 t ha−1 application rates and including an unamended control

Soil type

Biochar Rate (t ha−1) Acidic arenosol Acidic ferralsol Neutral vertisol Alkaline calcisol

Shoot (g)
None 0 3.89 (±0.80) 0.60 (±0.10) 5.47 (±0.55) 1.33 (±0.46)
PL biochar 1 2.55 (±0.38) 0.87 (±0.09) 4.66 (±1.18) 1.94 (±0.38)
5 4.47 (±0.60) 1.74 (±0.13) 5.80 (±1.09) 2.44 (±0.51)
10 2.31 (±0.45) 2.36 (±0.19) 4.79 (±0.53) 2.38 (±0.35)
WS biochar 1 3.60 (±0.37) 0.99 (±0.04) 5.24 (±0.32) 1.50 (±0.25)
5 4.79 (±0.33) 1.42 (±0.08) 5.03 (±0.48) 1.87 (±0.15)
10 2.33 (±0.48) 1.51 (±0.16) 5.75 (±0.76) 1.70 (±0.35)
P value Biochar NS P<0.001 NS P<0.05
Rate P<0.001 P<0.001 NS NS
Biochar×rate NS P<0.01 NS NS
Root (g)
None 0 0.34 (±0.12) 0.08 (±0.02) 0.29 (±0.08) 0.14 (±0.03)
PL biochar 1 0.17 (±0.03) 0.12 (±0.02) 0.26 (±0.09) 0.24 (±0.05)
5 0.31 (±0.02) 0.17 (±0.02) 0.41 (±0.10) 0.23 (±0.07)
10 0.21 (±0.04) 0.29 (±0.03) 0.26 (±0.07) 0.29 (±0.05)
WS biochar 1 0.23 (±0.05) 0.11 (±0.02) 0.27 (±0.05) 0.15 (±0.03)
5 0.29 (±0.02) 0.12 (±0.01) 0.29 (±0.08) 0.20 (±0.01)
10 0.17 (±0.02) 0.13 (±0.03) 0.33 (±0.07) 0.20 (±0.06)
P value Biochar NS P<0.001 NS NS
Rate P<0.05 P<0.001 NS NS
Biochar×rate NS P<0.01 NS NS
Grain (g)
None 0 2.22 (±0.46) 0.78 (±0.07) 4.48 (±0.75) 1.25 (±0.33)
PL biochar 1 2.50 (±0.47) 0.97 (±0.04) 4.72 (±0.75) 1.80 (±0.26)
5 2.67 (±0.32) 1.57 (±0.19) 4.91 (±0.72) 1.76 (±0.25)
10 1.75 (±0.26) 1.91 (±0.21) 4.19 (±0.56) 1.79 (±0.19)
WS biochar 1 3.18 (±0.45) 0.93 (±0.07) 4.86 (±0.71) 1.40 (±0.28)
5 3.11 (±0.28) 1.40 (±0.10) 4.84 (±0.37) 1.63 (±0.13)
10 1.78 (±0.47) 1.18 (±0.12) 5.44 (±0.50) 1.60 (±0.16)
P value Biochar NS P<0.01 NS NS
Rate P<0.01 P<0.001 NS NS
Biochar×rate NS P<0.01 NS NS
Total plant biomass (g)
None 0 6.46 (±1.26) 1.47 (±0.07) 10.24 (±1.12) 2.7 (±0.78)
PL biochar 1 5.22 (±0.87) 1.96 (±0.12) 9.64 (±1.84) 4.0 (±0.67)
5 7.45 (±0.43) 3.49 (±0.25) 11.20 (±1.89) 4.4 (±0.74)
10 4.27 (±0.74) 4.55 (±0.40) 9.25 (±1.06) 4.5 (±0.54)
WS biochar 1 7.01 (±0.79) 2.03 (±0.13) 10.37 (±1.07) 3.1 (±0.56)
5 8.19 (±0.55) 2.93 (±0.19) 10.16 (±0.08) 3.7 (±0.27)
10 4.28 (±0.96) 2.82 (±0.26) 11.52 (±1.23) 3.5 (±0.51)
P value Biochar NS P<0.001 NS NS
Rate P<0.001 P<0.001 NS NS
Biochar×rate NS P<0.01 NS NS

Data are averages of four replicates, ±standard error. Statistical P values (permutation ANOVA) are reported for the effects of biochar, application ate and
their interaction
1040 Biol Fertil Soils (2014) 50:1035–1045

Table 4 Soil parameters (soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, Olsen P and pH) at the end of a wheat growth period in four contrasting soils amended with
poultry-litter (PL) biochar or wheat straw (WS) biochar at 1, 5 and 10 t ha−1 application rates, and including an unamended control

Soil type

Biochar Rate (t ha−1) Acidic arenosol Acidic ferralsol Neutral vertisol Alkaline calcisol

C (mg/g)
None 0 10.7 (±0.9) 43.0 (±0.2) 21.7 (±0.1) 23.73 (±0.6)
PL biochar 1 10.6 (±0.8) 42.4 (±0.4) 22.3 (±0.1) 24.45 (±0.3)
5 12.5 (±0.3) 45.6 (±0.01) 24.6 (±0.3) 27.44 (±1.2)
10 15.7 (±0.4) 48.7 (±0.6) 27.3 (±0.4) 29.49 (±1.0)
WS biochar 1 9.6 (±1.4) 43.8 (±0.2) 22.3 (±0.2) 24.27 (±0.5)
5 11.0 (±0.6) 46.2 (±0.2) 25.2 (±0.2) 26.72 (±0.3)
10 15.8 (±0.4) 49.4 (±0.1) 28.5 (±0.3) 29.35 (±0.3)
P value Biochar NS P<0.001 P<0.01 NS
Rate P<0.001 P<0.001 P<0.001 P<0.001
Biochar×rate NS NS NS NS
N (mg/g)
None 0 0.89 (±0.09) 4.12 (±0.07) 1.53 (±0.02) 1.63 (±0.27)
PL biochar 1 0.86 (±0.05) 4.05 (±0.04) 1.53 (±0.06) 1.83 (±0.07)
5 0.86 (±0.04) 2.23 (±0.04) 1.69 (±0.01) 1.80 (±0.09)
10 1.02 (±0.03) 4.24 (±0.06) 1.73 (±0.02) 1.72 (±0.04)
WS biochar 1 0.74 (±0.11) 4.09 (±0.04) 1.60 (±0.03) 1.81 (±0.7)
5 0.73 (±0.04) 4.27 (±0.04) 2.12 (±0.47) 1.99 (±0.07)
10 1.03 (±0.03) 4.42 (±0.03) 1.87 (±0.03) 2.35 (±0.05)
P value Biochar NS P<0.05 NS P<0.05
Rate P<0.001 P<0.001 NS NS
Biochar×rate NS NS NS P<0.05
Olsen P (mg/g)
None 0 14.0 (±2.5) 5.4 (±2.1) 44.3 (±2.1) 30.6 (±4.2)
PL biochar 1 14.3 (±1.4) 12.9 (±1.1) 49.9 (±2.0) 21.3 (±2.9)
5 19.4 (±3.6) 18.7 (±1.0) 51.9 (±2.8) 37.7 (±6.1)
10 42.2 (±6.1) 19.6 (±5.5) 59.7 (±1.3) 44.6 (±5.5)
WS biochar 1 5.1 (±1.5) 9.4 (±3.1) 43.6 (±1.0) 23.9 (±4.2)
5 10.8 (±3.3) 21.9 (±0.8) 51.2 (±4.2) 36.6 (±3.7)
10 27.2 (±2.9) 17.9 (±5.2) 51.7 (±2.4) 39.8 (±9.4)
P value Biochar P<0.001 NS P<0.01 NS
Rate P<0.001 P<0.01 P<0.001 P<0.01
Biochar×rate NS NS NS NS
pH
None 0 4.71 (±0.12) 4.97 (±0.03) 7.33 (±0.01) 7.99 (±0.04)
PL biochar 1 4.58 (±0.03) 4.96 (±0.01) 7.33 (±0.01) 8.04 (±0.02)
5 5.17 (±0.08) 5.05 (±0.01) 7.34 (±0.01) 8.25 (±0.01)
10 5.18 (±0.05) 5.15 (±0.01) 7.38 (±0.01) 8.22 (±0.01)
WS biochar 1 5.13 (±0.08) 4.93 (±0.01) 7.36 (±0.01) 7.98 (±0.02)
5 5.54 (±0.02) 5.03 (±0.01) 7.34 (±0.03) 8.08 (±0.04)
10 5.34 (±0.08) 5.11 (±0.01) 7.33 (±0.01) 8.17 (±0.03)
P value Biochar P<0.001 P<0.05 NS P<0.001
Rate P<0.001 P<0.001 NS P<0.05
Biochar×rate P<0.05 NS NS P<0.001
EC
None 0 0.14 (±0.04) 0.50 (±0.01) 0.11 (±0.01) 0.45 (±0.05)
Biol Fertil Soils (2014) 50:1035–1045 1041

Table 4 (continued)

Soil type

Biochar Rate (t ha−1) Acidic arenosol Acidic ferralsol Neutral vertisol Alkaline calcisol

PL biochar 1 0.20 (±0.01) 0.48 (±0.01) 0.14 (±0.02) 0.38 (±0.01)

5 0.13 (±0.02) 0.48 (±0.01) 0.15 (±0.01) 0.42 (±0.03)
10 0.29 (±0.02) 0.58 (±0.02) 0.20 (±0.02) 0.45 (±0.02)
WS biochar 1 0.10 (±0.02) 0.50 (±0.01) 0.12 (±0.01) 0.43 (±0.03)
5 0.10 (±0.01) 0.51 (±0.02) 0.17 (±0.01) 0.40 (±0.01)
10 0.29 (±0.03) 0.60 (±0.01) 0.24 (±0.03) 0.52 (±0.03)
P value Biochar P<0.05 P<0.001 NS NS
Rate P<0.001 P<0.01 P<0.001 P<0.01
Biochar×rate P<0.05 P<0.01 NS NS

magnitude (0.1–0.2 pH units) compared with the acidic et al. 2010; Jeffery et al. 2011; Biederman and Harpole 2012;
arenosol, a clear linear rate-dependent effect common to both Crane-Droesch et al. 2013).
biochar types, was demonstrated in the acidic ferralsol The negative-growth response in the acidic arenosol is
(P<0.001). A significant (P<0.001) impact was also demon- perhaps counter intuitive given its low fertility and the rate-
strated in the alkaline calcisol, with higher pH changes (~0.25 dependent changes in soil pH, TN and Olsen P (Table 2).
pH units) reported under the PL compared with WS-biochar Similar to other work reporting negative yield responses in
treatments (Table 4). poor fertility soils despite a concurrent increases in soil pH
Soil EC was significantly (P<0.01) increased in all soils (Gaskin et al. 2010), our study shows a trend for a smaller root
under high application rates of WC biochar in all soil types biomass in the biochar-amended acidic arenosol. Any poten-
and in the acidic arenosol and neutral vertisol amended with tial benefits resulting from biochar-related improvements in
PL biochar (Table 4). pH, nutrition, CEC and water holding capacity (Table 2) in
infertile coarse-textured acidic soils (Rajkovich et al. 2012;
Revell et al. 2012; Zheng et al. 2013) appear to have been
Correlation between plant growth and altered soil properties
negated by an inhibitory effect that correlated with EC, espe-
cially at high application rates of both PL and WS biochar.
The neutral vertisol was excluded from regression analysis
Salt toxicity associated with biochar addition has previously
owing to nonsignificant impact on plant growth. No correla-
been reported in pot trials (Revell et al. 2012; Rajkovich et al.
tions were found between plant growth in the alkaline calcisol
2012) and would be expected to relate to changes in EC.
and measured soil parameters. EC had a negative correlation
However, if salt toxicity from biochar addition was responsi-
(R2 =0.70; P<0.01) with plant biomass in the acidic arenosol.
ble for growth inhibition it may be expected across all soil
Soil pH had a positive correlation (R2 =0.74; P<0.01) with
treatments and not just the arenosol which had the lowest EC.
plant growth in the acidic ferralsol that was rate dependent,
Alternatively, the poor buffering capacity of this coarse-
and stronger in the PL compared with WS biochar at high
textured sandy soil, considerably lower than the other studied
application rates.
soil types (Table 1), is likely to mean that the plant roots are
fully exposed to any unfavourable cation balance (Ca/Na or
Mg/Ca; Marschner 1995) or toxic elements. Soils with higher
Discussion CEC are better able to buffer the direct exposure. The PL
biochar used in this study contained more nutrients (P, Ca,
Contrasting plant growth responses were observed over the Mg, S, Cu, Mn, Mo and Zn) and Na, while the WS biochar
range of soils studied, but only partially followed the expec- had higher CEC (Table 2). According to the wider data on
tations relating to pH, with contrasting plant growth responses biochar characteristics, grass-based and organic waste-based
in the two acidic soils and a trend for positive growth response biochar are likely to have high EC loadings, while wood-
in the alkaline soil (Fig. 1). Across recent reviews and meta- based biochar with lower EC (Krull et al. 2012) may prove
analysis there is a general consensus that biochar is more more suitable in vulnerable soils with low capacity to buffer
likely to result in positive plant growth responses in acidic chemical changes. Despite growing data on the characteristics
soil types compared with neutral and alkaline soils (Atkinson of biochar there is a need to identify which specific ions may
1042 Biol Fertil Soils (2014) 50:1035–1045

be responsible for plant growth inhibition in poorly buffered Soil acidification is a serious and widespread problem in
soils. Australian agriculture (Scott et al. 1992; Donnelly 2003), with
In the acidic ferralsol, a rate-dependent growth stimulus an 8–12 % improvement in wheat yield possible under appro-
was evident in both biochar types for shoot, root, and grain priate pH management (Gazey and Davies 2009). Biochar
biomass and was of greater magnitude for PL compared commonly has an alkaline pH, and the higher alkalinity in
with WS biochar (Fig. 1). The clear rate-dependent effect biochars produced at higher pyrolysis temperatures is mainly
suggests that wider meta-analysis across the literature (20 attributed to the presence of carbonates (Yuan et al. 2011).
studies) reporting no clear relationship between productivity Benefits from biochar associated liming have previously been
and biochar application rate (Biederman and Harpole 2012) reported (Jones et al. 2012; Van Zwieten et al. 2010), owing to
could be masking rate dependent effects in specific soil improved nutrient availability, microbial activity and
systems. The plant growth responses in the acidic ferralsol mineralisation (Castaldi et al. 2011). Although the ANC of
significantly correlated with increasing pH resulting from biochar is far lower than traditional liming products (dolomite,
the liming effect of the biochar. The relatively small chang- lime sand/stone and chalk lime), all follow a transient nature
es in bulk soil pH (0.3 units or ~1.5 times less acidity with the alkalinity of biochar neutralised within a few years
when taking account of the logarithmic pH scale) observed (Jones et al. 2012; Slavich et al. 2013). Therefore any pH-
in the acidic ferralsol (see Table 3) appears to have had a related growth benefit from biochar is likely to be temporary,
disproportionally large effect on plant growth. However, the and the magnitude dependent on the timing of biochar incor-
low productivity in non-amended acidic ferralsol compared poration relative to the wider long-term liming management
with the other soils, points towards serious constraints to plan. Biochars are unlikely to replace current liming options
plant growth. Acidic soil conditions constrain plant growth and there is a lack of research integrating biochar with wider
through limiting the availability of key nutrients (e.g. N, P, soil pH management options and may confer additional ben-
K, S, Mg and Mn) and/or though excess availability of efits including nutrient addition, CEC and binding of toxic
potentially toxic elements (e.g. Al and Bo). In these reac- elements.
tive, highly weathered soils, the chemical behaviour of Fe Contrary to hypotheses on calcareous soils, this study dem-
and Al oxides (predominant in this soil) is strongly pH onstrated a trend for increased plant growth with biochar
dependent. Under acidic conditions, P is tightly bound to amendment, which was stronger under the nutrient-rich PL
Al and Fe oxides but becomes released as acidity drops biochar compared with WS biochar. Although growth variabil-
(Cui et al. 2011). Although both biochars had comparable ity was high, the results suggest some benefit from biochar
ANC, the PL biochar was richer in P, Mo and Ca which could be attained with improved mechanistic understanding of
could explain the additional growth benefit compared with these responses. In calcareous soils (pH 8 and above) plant
WS biochar. Slavich et al. (2013) have previously demon- productivity is often limited by poor availability of P, Fe, Mg,
strated greater plant growth responses in an acidic ferralsol and to a lesser extent Cu and Zn (Bertrand et al. 2003). Despite
amended with PL biochar compared with green-waste bio- the potential to supplement these nutrient pools, biochar is
char and attributed this to improved plant P nutrition under generally considered to offer limited production benefits in
PL biochar. An alternative explanation pertinent to this soil alkaline soils (Biederman and Harpole 2012; Crane-Droesch
(Table 1) would be the alleviation of Al toxicity, which is et al. 2013; Farrell et al. 2014). However, as the majority of
well established as inhibitory to root growth and nutrient biochars are alkaline in nature (Krull et al. 2012), and many of
(particularly NO3−) uptake (Scott et al. 1992). Root growth the soil constraints relate to pH-dependent limitations in nutri-
did appear visually stunted and was considerably lower com- ent availability (Bertrand et al. 2003), it is perhaps not surpris-
pared with the other soil types, and total Al content of the ing that fewer positive results are demonstrated in alkaline soils.
ferralsol was considerably higher than the other studied soils. Reported benefits of biochar in alkaline soils include im-
Alleviation of Al toxicity can be attained primarily through proved CEC and NO3− retention (Zhang et al. 2013), and
liming but also through greater Ca supply which improves root biochar has been shown to alter partitioning between different
growth under Al stress (Scott et al. 1992). Major et al. (2010) P fractions (Farrell et al. 2014) and micronutrients such as Mn
previously reported greater maize yield in an Al-rich soil (Lentz and Ippolito 2012). In carbonate-rich soils, the avail-
amended with biochar, owing to improved Ca and Mg nutri- ability of nutrients is strongly dependent on the extent of
tion. The PL biochar used in this study has 6-fold more Ca and precipitation with Ca, and any potential benefits from biochar
8-fold more Mo compared with the WS biochar (Table 2). use in calcareous soils are unlikely to eventuate without wider
Other research has demonstrated binding of Al to the surface consideration of the management context. For example, fluid
of biochar which can act to reduce toxicity (Lin et al. 2012). fertilisers commonly outperform granular fertilisers in
The mechanisms behind the growth benefits in this soil are carbonate-rich soils in Southern Australia (Bertrand et al.
likely to include interactive effects between pH amelioration, 2001; McBeath et al. 2007), and banding fertiliser beneath
improved P nutrition and perhaps reduced Al toxicity. the seed has additional yield benefit (Bertrand et al. 2003).
Biol Fertil Soils (2014) 50:1035–1045 1043

In the neutral vertisol, our results were consistent with References

predictions reported by Crane-Droesch et al. (2013) indicating
small or neutral impact on plant growth. Wheat growth in this Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA+for
soil was vigorous, seemingly unconstrained by nutrient or PRIMER: Guide to software and statistical methods. PRIMER-E
water resources and unaffected by biochar. In the major Ltd, Plymouth, UK
Atkinson CJ, Fitzgerald JD, Hipps NA (2010) Potential mechanisms for
cropping regions of north-eastern Australia where neutral
achieving agricultural benefits from biochar application to temperate
vertisols dominate, water and various subsoil constraints soils: a review. Plant Soil 337:1–18
(pH, Al and Bo) are more likely limitations to productivity Barrow CJ (2012) Biochar: Potential for countering land degradation and
(Dang et al. 2006a, b). Although not addressed within this for improving agriculture. App Geogr 34:21–28
Bertrand I, Holloway RE, McLaughlin MJ (2001) Fluid fertilisers—a
study, targeted use of biochar in the sub-soil may have greater
better solution for growing wheat in alkaline soils? In: Horst W,
potential in these soil systems compared with surface broad- Schenk MK, Bürkert A, Claassen N, Flessa H, Frommer WB,
cast methods. A clear gap exists in biochar application re- Goldbach HE, Olfs HW, Römheld V, Sattelmacher B,
search when considering the main production constraints of Schmidhalter U, Schubert S, von Wirén N, Wittenmaye L (eds)
Plant nutrition—food security and sustainability of agro-
the regions where our test soils originated. Although deep
ecosystems through basic and applied research. Kluwer Academic
banding of biochar has been discussed (Blackwell et al. Publishers, the Netherlands, pp 700–701
2009; Blackwell et al. 2010; Farrell et al. 2014) and demon- Bertrand I, Holloway RE, Armstrong RD, McLaughlin MJ (2003)
strated in coarse-textured Western Australian soil (Blackwell Chemical characteristics of phosphorus in alkaline soils from south-
ern Australia. Aust J Soil Res 41:61–76
et al. 2010), practical in-field demonstrations in heavier, fine
Biederman LA, Harpole WS (2012) Biochar and its effects on plant
textured soil types are lacking. productivity and nutrient cycling: a meta-analysis. Glob Change
The potential of biochar as a soil conditioner is widely Bio Bioenergy 5:202–214
acknowledged, but integrating its use to address produc- Blackwell P, Riethmuller G, Collins M (2009) Biochar application to soil.
In: Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) Biochar for environmental manage-
tion constraints beyond mainstream nutrient addition is
ment: science and technology. Earthscan, London, UK, pp 207–226
often overlooked. Moving towards effective integration of Blackwell P, Krull E, Butler G, Herbert A, Solaiman Z (2010) Effect of
biochar as a management tool will not only require strat- banded biochar on dryland wheat production and fertiliser use in
ification based on soil types, but wider consideration of south-western Australia: an agronomic and economic perspective.
the main production constraints pertinent to a particular Aust J Soil Res 48:531–545
Cantrell KB, Hunt PG, Uchimiya M, Novak JM, Ro KS (2012)
system. Our results reiterate the importance of soil type as Impact of pyrolysis temperature and manure source on phys-
a driver in understanding plant responses to biochar addi- icochemical characteristics of biochar. Bioresource Technol
tion, and in general support the modelling by Crane- 107:419–428
Droesch et al. (2013) suggesting little benefit in where Castaldi S, Riondino M, Baronti S, Esposito FR, Marzaioli R, Rutigliano
FA, Vaccari FP, Miglietta F (2011) Impact of biochar application to a
plant growth is unconstrained (e.g. the neutral vertisol) Mediterranean wheat crop on soil microbial activity and greenhouse
and maximum benefit on weathered, degraded soils of gas fluxes. Chemosphere 85:1464–1471
heavier texture, with active mineralogy and low pH (e.g. Crane-Droesch A, Abiven S, Jeffery S, Torn MS (2013) Heterogeneous
acidic rhodic ferralsol). The plant growth benefits in the global crop yield response to biochar: a meta-regression analysis.
Environ Res Letters 8:044049
acidic ferralsol clearly correlated with a liming effect, and Cui HJ, Wang MK, Fu ML, Ci E (2011) Enhancing phosphorus avail-
also perhaps plant P nutrition in the case of PL biochar. ability in phosphorus-fertilised zones by reducing phosphate
However, the unexpected negative effect on plant growth adsorbed on ferrihydrite using rice straw derived biochar. J Soils
in the poorly buffered acidic arenosol suggest that biochar Sediments 11:1135–1141
Dane JH, Topp GC (eds) (2002) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4.
can result in inhibitory EC loadings in closed pot systems Physical Methods. Soil Science Society of America Book Series
when seeding occurs immediately following application of Number 5. ISBN:0-89118-810-X. Soil Science Society of America,
high rates of fresh biochar. Given the soil-specific results Madison, WI, p 1692
demonstrated within this study, guidelines for use of bio- Dang YP, Dalal RC, Routley R, Schwenke GD, Daniells I (2006a)
Subsoil constraints to grain production in the cropping soils of the
char in agriculture should take into account soil-specific north-eastern region of Australia: an overview. Aust J Exp Agr 46:
constraints on plant growth and likely vulnerabilities with- 19–35
in particular soil types. Dang YP, Routley R, McDonald M, Dalal RC, Singh DK, Orange
D, Mann M (2006b) Subsoil constraints in Neutral vertisols:
crop water use, nutrient concentration, and grain yields of
bread wheat, durum wheat, barley, chickpea, and canola.
Acknowledgements This work was conducted under the Australian Aust J Soil Res 57:983–998
Grains Research and Development Corporation, more Profit for Crop Donnelly JR (2003) Strategies for environmentally sustainable agricul-
Nutrition Program and in collaboration with work carried out under the ture in Australia. Asia Pac J Clin Nut 12(Suppl):S49
Australian Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries National Ducey TF, Ippolito JA, Cantrell KB, Novak JM, Lentz RD (2013)
Biochar Initiative. Janine McGowan, Thomas Carter and Lester Smith are Addition of activated switchgrass biochar to an aridic subsoil in-
thanked for technical assistance. The anonymous reviewers are thanked creases microbial nitrogen cycling gene abundances. Appl Soil Ecol
for useful comments on this manuscript. 65:65–72
1044 Biol Fertil Soils (2014) 50:1035–1045

Farrell M, Kuhn TK, Macdonald LM, Maddern TM, Murphy DV, Hall PA, Major J, Rondon M, Molina D, Riha SJ, Lehmann J (2010) Maize yield
Singh BP, Baumann K, Krull ES, Baldock JA (2013) Microbial and nutrition during 4 years after biochar application to a Colombian
utilisation of biochar-derived carbon. Sci Total Environ 465:288–297 savanna oxisol. Plant Soil 333:117–128
Farrell M, Macdonald LM, Butler G, Chirino-Valle I, Condron LM Marschner H (1995) Mineral nutrition of higher plants
(2014) Biochar and fertiliser applications influence phosphorus McBeath TM, McLaughlin MJ, Armstrong RD, Bell M, Bolland MDA,
fractionation and wheat yield. Biol Fert of Soils 50:169–178 Conyers MK, Holloway RE, Mason SD (2007) Predicting the
Gaskin JW, Speir RA, Harris K, Das KC, Lee RD, Morris LA, Fisher DS response of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to liquid and granular
(2010) Effect of Peanut Hull and Pine Chip Biochar on Soil phosphorus fertilisers in Australian soils. Aust J Soil Res 45:448–
Nutrients, Corn Nutrient Status, and Yield. Agron J 102:623–633 458
Gazey C, Davies S, (2009) Soil acidity: a guide for WA farmers and Mukome FND, Zhang X, Silva LCR, Six J, Parikh SJ (2013) Use of
consultants, Precision SoilTech & Wheatbelt Natural Resource Chemical and Physical Characteristics To Investigate Trends in
Management Inc, Bulletin 4784 Biochar Feedstocks. J Ag Food Chem 61:2196–2204
Gueerena D, Lehmann J, Hanley K, Enders A, Hyland C, Riha S (2013) Namgay T, Singh B, Singh BP (2010) Influence of biochar application to
Nitrogen dynamics following field application of biochar in a tem- soil on the availability of As, Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn to maize (Zea mays
perate North American maize-based production system. Plant Soil L.). Aust J Soil Res 48:638–647
365:239–254 Novak JM, Lima I, Xing BS, Gaskin JW, Steiner C, Das KC, Ahmedna
Gurwick NP, Moore LA, Kelly C, Elias P (2013) A Systematic Review of M, Rehrah D, Watts DW, Busscher WJ, Schomberg H (2009)
Biochar Research, with a Focus on Its Stability in situ and Its Characterization of designer biochar produced at different tempera-
Promise as a Climate Mitigation Strategy. Plos One 8, Doi:10. tures and their effects on a loamy sand. Ann Env Sc 3:195–206
1371/journal.pone.0075932 Rajkovich S, Enders A, Hanley K, Hyland C, Zimmerman AR, Lehmann
Haynes RJ (1982) Effects of liming on phosphate availability in acid J (2012) Corn growth and nitrogen nutrition after additions of
soils—a critical review. Plant Soil 68:289–308 biochars with varying properties to a temperate soil. Biol Fert
Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response Soils 48:271–284
ratios in experimental ecology. Ecol 80:1150–1156 Revell KT, Maguire RO, Agblevor FA (2012) Influence of Poultry Litter
Herath H, Camps-Arbestain M, Hedley M (2013) Effect of biochar on Biochar on Soil Properties and Plant Growth. Soil Sc 177:402–408
soil physical properties in two contrasting soils: an Alfisol and an Rousk J, Dempster DN, Jones DL (2013) Transient biochar effects on
Andisol. Geoderma 209:188–197 decomposer microbial growth rates: evidence from two agricultural
Jeffery S, Verheijen FGA, van der Velde M, Bastos AC (2011) A case-studies. Eur J Soil Sci 64:770–776
quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on Ryan MH, Derrick JW, Dann PR (2004) Grain mineral concentrations
crop productivity using meta-analysis. Ag Ecosyst Environ 144: and yield of wheat grown under organic and conventional manage-
175–187 ment. J Sci Food Agr 84:207–216
Jones DL, Rousk J, Edwards-Jones G, DeLuca TH, Murphy DV (2012) Saarnio S, Heimonen K, Kettunen R (2013) Biochar addition indirectly
Biochar-mediated changes in soil quality and plant growth in a three affects N2O emissions via soil moisture and plant N uptake. Soil
year field trial. Soil Biol Biochem 45:113–124 Biol Biochem 58:99–106
Joseph SD, Camps-Arbestain M, Lin Y, Munroe P, Chia CH, Hook J, van Schimmelpfennig S, Glaser B (2012) One Step Forward toward
Zwieten L, Kimber S, Cowie A, Singh BP, Lehmann J, Foidl N, Characterization: Some Important Material Properties to
Smernik RJ, Amonette JE (2010) An investigation into the reactions Distinguish Biochars. J Environ Quality 41:1001–1013
of biochar in soil. Aust J Soil Res 48:501–515 Schomberg HH, Gaskin JW, Harris K, Das KC, Novak JM, Busscher WJ,
Kloss S, Zehetner F, Dellantonio A, Hamid R, Ottner F, Liedtke V, Watts DW, Woodroof RH, Lima IM, Ahmedna M, Rehrah D, Xing
Schwanninger M, Gerzabek MH, Soja G (2012) Characterization B (2012) Influence of Biochar on Nitrogen Fractions in a Coastal
of Slow Pyrolysis Biochars: effects of Feedstocks and Pyrolysis Plain Soil. J Environ Quality 41:1087–1095
Temperature on Biochar Properties. J Environ Qual 41:990–1000 Scott BJ, Fisher JA, Spohr LJ (1992) Tolerance of Australian wheat-
Kookana RS, Sarmah AK, Van Zwieten L, Krull E, Singh B (2011) varieties to Aluminium toxicity. Commun Soil Sci Plan 23:509–526
Biochar application to soil: agronomic and environmental benefits Silber A, Levkovitch I, Graber ER (2010) pH-Dependent Mineral
and unintended consequences. Adv Agron 112:103–143 Release and Surface Properties of Cornstraw Biochar: Agronomic
Krull ES, Macdonald LM, Singh B, Singh BP, Fang Y, Cowie AL, Cowie Implications. Environ Sci Technol 44:9318–9323
AJ, van Zwieten L, Murphy DV, Farrell M, Kookana R, Dandie C Slavich PG, Sinclair K, Morris SG, Kimber SWL, Downie A, Van
(2012) From source to sink: a national initiative for biochar research. Zwieten L (2013) Contrasting effects of manure and green waste
Climate Change Research Program—Department of Agriculture, biochars on the properties of an acidic ferralsol and productivity of a
Fisheries and Forestry, Australia subtropical pasture. Plant Soil 366:213–227
Lehmann J, Rillig MC, Thies J, Masiello CA, Hockaday WS, Crowley D Smith GS, Johnston CM, Cornforth IS (1983) Comparison of nutrient
(2012) Biochar effects on soil biota—a review. Soil Biol Biochem solutions for growth of plants in sand culture. New Phytol 94:537–548
43:1812–1836 Song Y, Zhang X, Ma B, Chang SX, Gong J (2014) Biochar addition
Lei O, Zhang RD (2013) Effects of biochars derived from different affected the dynamics of ammonia oxidisers and nitrification in
feedstocks and pyrolysis temperatures on soil physical and hydraulic microcosms of a coastal alkaline soil. Biol Fertil Soils 50:321–332
properties. J Soils Sediments 13:1561–1572 Spokas KA, Cantrell KB, Novak JM, Archer DW, Ippolito JA, Collins
Lentz RD, Ippolito JA (2012) Biochar and manure affect calcareous soil HP, Boateng AA, Lima IM, Lamb MC, McAloon AJ, Lentz RD,
and corn silage nutrient concentrations and uptae. J Env Quality 41: Nichols KA (2012) Biochar: a synthesis of its agronomic impact
1033–1043 beyond carbon sequestration. J Environ Quality 41:973–989
Lin Y, Munroe P, Joseph S, Kimber S, Van Zwieten L (2012) Nanoscale Steinbeiss S, Gleixner G, Antonietti M (2009) Effect of biochar amend-
organo-mineral reactions of biochars in rhodic acidic ferralsol: an ment on soil carbon balance and soil microbial activity. Soil Biol
investigation using microscopy. Plant Soil 357:369–380 Biochem 41:1301–1310
Liu J, Schulz H, Brandl S, Miehtke H, Huwe B, Glaser B (2012) Short- Van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Morris S, Chan KY, Downie A, Rust J, Joseph
term effect of biochar and compost on soil fertility and water status S, Cowie A (2010) Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of
of a Dystric Cambisol in NE Germany under field conditions. J Plant papermill waste on agronomic performance and soil fertility. Plant
Nutr Soil Sc 175:698–707 Soil 327:235–246
Biol Fertil Soils (2014) 50:1035–1045 1045

Van Zwieten L, Kimber SWL, Morris SG, Singh BP, Grace PR, Scheer C, Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, Lehmann J, Joseph S (2010)
Rust J, Downie AE, Cowie AL (2013) Pyrolysing poultry litter Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature
reduces N2O and CO2 fluxes. Sci Total Environ 465:279–287 Comm 1:1–9
Van Zwieten L, Singh BP, Kimber SWL, Murphy DV, Macdonald LM, Yuan J-H, Xu R-K, Zhang H (2011) The forms of alkalis in the biochar
Rust J, Morris S (2014) An incubation study investigating the produced from crop residues at different temperatures. Bioresource
mechanisms that impact N2O flux from soil following biochar Technol 102:3488–3497
application. Agr Eco Env. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2014.02.03 Zhang QZ, Wang XH, Du ZL, Liu XR, Wang YB (2013) Impact of
Vassilev N, Martos E, Mendes G, Martos V, Vassileva M (2013) Biochar biochar on nitrate accumulation in an alkaline soil. Soil Res 51:521–
of animal origin: a sustainable solution to the global problem of 528
high-grade rock phosphate scarcity? J Sci Food Agr 93:1799–1804 Zheng H, Wang Z, Deng X, Herbert S, Xing B (2013) Impacts of adding
Ventura F, Salvatorelli F, Piana S, Pieri L, Pisa PR (2012) The effects of biochar on nitrogen retention and bioavailability in agricultural soil.
biochar on the physical properties of bare soil. Earth Environ Sci Geoderma 206:32–39
Trans Royal Soc Edinburgh 103:5–11 Zimmerman AR, Gao B, Ahn M-Y (2011) Positive and negative carbon
Wang T, Camps-Arbestain M, Hedley M, Bishop P (2012) Predicting phos- mineralization priming effects among a variety of biochar-amended
phorus bioavailability from high-ash biochars. Plant Soil 357:173–187 soils. Soil Biol Biochem 43:1169–1179