Original Paper Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

Effects of biochar on soil chemical properties: A global

meta-analysis of agricultural soil

Zenghui Sun1,2,3*, Ya Hu1,3, Lei Shi1,3, Gang Li1,3, Zhe Pang1,3, Siqi Liu1,3,
Yamiao Chen1,3, Baobao Jia4
1Shaanxi Provincial Land Engineering Construction Group Co., Xi‘an, P.R. China
2Collegeof Life Sciences, Yulin University, Yulin, P.R. China
3Key Laboratory of Degraded and Unused Land Consolidation Engineering,

Ministry of Natural and Resources of China, Xi‘an, P.R. China

4Shaanxi Tourism Group Co., Ltd, Xi‘an, P.R. China

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Citation: Sun Z.H., Hu Y., Shi L., Li G., Pang Z., Liu S.Q., Chen Y.M., Jia B.B. (2022): Effects of biochar on soil chemical
properties: A global meta-analysis of agricultural soil. Plant Soil Environ., 68: 272–289.

Abstract: Improved soil properties are commonly reported benefits of adding biochar to agriculture soils. To in-
vestigate the range of biochar’s effects on soil chemical properties (e.g., soil pH, electrical conductivity (EC), cation
exchange capacity (CEC), soil organic carbon (SOC), soil total carbon (TC), and soil carbon-nitrogen ratio (C : N
ratio)) in response to varied experimental conditions, a meta-analysis was conducted on previously published results.
The results showed that the effect of biochar on soil chemical properties varied depending on management conditi-
ons, soil properties, biochar pyrolysis conditions, and biochar properties. The effect size (Hedges’d) of the biochar
was greatest for SOC (0.50), the C : N ratio of soil (0.44), soil pH (0.39), TC (0.35), EC (0.21), and CEC (0.20). Among
the various factors examined by aggregated boosted tree analysis, the effects of biochar on soil chemical properties
were largely explained by the biochar application rate, initial soil pH, and soil sand content. In conclusion, our study
suggests that improving soil chemical properties by adding biochar not only requires consideration of biochar appli-
cation rates and chemical properties but also the local soil environmental factors, especially soil initial pH and sand
content of the soil, should be considered.

Keywords: charcoal; organic material; agricultural condition; soil chemistry; soil fertility

Biochar is a solid product formed by high-tem- 2017). Among its potential applications, agriculture
perature pyrolysis of organic matter, such as straw, is the most widely cited sector for biochar use, and
woody material, or livestock manure, under low anoxic biochar products have broad application prospects
conditions. Biochar is widely used as an amendment in ecological restoration and rehabilitation of barren
to improve soil quality for plant growth (Pandey lands such as degraded cultivated land, degraded
et al. 2016, Kätterer et al. 2019), resource use effi- grassland, and degraded orchards, as well as in new
ciency (Stefaniuk et al. 2017), to reduce or mitigate farmland (Deal et al. 2012, Jien and Wang 2013, Peake
environmental pollution (Meng et al. 2018, Lebrun et al. 2014, Li et al. 2018).
et al. 2019, Norini et al. 2019), and as an effective The addition of biochar can stimulate soil car-
measure for reducing greenhouse gas emissions bon sequestration (Sandhu et al. 2017, Wang et al.
(Case et al. 2012, Verhoeven and Six 2014, Lin et al. 2017), improve soil structure (Mukherjee et al. 2014,

Supported by the Fund for Less Developed Regions of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant
No. 42167039, and by the Technology Innovation Center for Land Engineering and Human Settlement Environment,
Shaanxi Land Engineering Construction Group Co., Ltd. and Xi’an Jiaotong University, Project No. 2021WHZ0091.

272
Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289 Original Paper

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

Pranagal et al. 2017), physical and chemical proper- in the experimental areas (Abujabhah et al. 2016a,
ties (Herath et al. 2013, De la Rosa et al. 2014, Jeffery Ajayi and Horn 2016, Sandhu et al. 2017). This has
et al. 2015), enhance soil nutrient availability, and rendered the promotion and application of biochar
aggregate stability (Bayabil et al. 2015, Molnár et al. technology unfavourable (Verhoeven and Six 2014,
2016). By enhancing and improving soil microbial Hall and Bell 2015, Vaccari et al. 2015, Zheng et al.
activity, biochar also indirectly affects crop growth 2017). Biochar has complex and wide-scale effects
and development, collectively improving soil quality on soil chemistry, and there is still an incomplete
and fertility and ultimately improving crop yields understanding of how the biochar generated from
(Cheng et al. 2017, Yao et al. 2017, Wong et al. 2019). different feedstocks and experiment conditions affect
Especially in the context of increasingly widespread the chemical properties of different soils (Unger et al.
biochar application, in-depth studies of biochar char- 2011). Based on the inconsistencies in the findings
acteristics, application management, and evaluation from previous studies, analysing the changes in soil
of its value in large-scale agricultural production chemical characteristics caused by the application
have important theoretical and practical signifi- of biochar with different characteristics and applied
cance for the development of sustainable agriculture under different agricultural conditions is important
(Tan et al. 2017, Yu et al. 2019). Furthermore, in the for identifying key drivers that have positive effects
context of the diversification of biochar feedstocks, on soil chemical properties. The differences in bio-
the development of production technology, and char properties and application rates, soil fertility,
the refinement of application techniques, biochars soil texture, climatic conditions, and experimental
have very heterogeneous properties differing in re- setup and duration could limit comparison between
sources and pyrolysis conditions (Mukherjee and different studies and extrapolation of results to other
Zimmerman 2013). Therefore, the analysis of the conditions. Despite the numerous studies on biochar-
impacts of individual factors no longer fully informs soil interaction, there is still uncertainty on how
applications across the diverse environmental condi- biochar modifies soil chemical properties. Hence,
tions of farmlands. developing a comprehensive biochar application
In recent years, the impact of biochar applica- policy based on experimental conditions is essential.
tion on crop growth and soil properties has become A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that col-
a dynamic area of research focused on the obtain- lates and combines data from existing research on
ing of increased agricultural yields and improving a given subject matter (Jeffery et al. 2016, Omondi et
degraded soils (Borchard et al. 2014, Agegnehu et al. al. 2016, Gurevitch et al. 2018, Jiang et al. 2019). This
2016). Biochar application can improve soil proper- method has been applied to quantitatively analyse the
ties, particularly physical properties, and increase effects of biochar on crop yield increases (Zhang et
crop production. Biochar addition to soil could alter al. 2019), soil water properties (Omondi et al. 2016,
soil microbial composition and structure and their Edeh et al. 2020, Razzaghi et al. 2020), plant uptake
key soil processes such as carbon mineralisation and of heavy metals (Chen et al. 2018), and soil green-
nutrient transformation. Additionally, the wide C : N house gas emissions (Jeffery et al. 2016, Borchard et
ratio of biochar may decrease soil N availability in al. 2019, Liu et al. 2019b). In these studies, biochar
N deficient soils, therefore reducing crop yields. parameters ((a) production conditions: feedstock and
Other negative aspects of biochar on soil include pyrolysis temperature; (b) properties: pH, CEC, and
decreased nutrient immobilisation and accelerated C : N ratio, and (c) application rates), soil conditions
resolve of native soil organic carbon (SOC) by higher (texture, pH, SOC, C : N ratio, and CEC), tested plant
soil microbial activity (Jindo et al. 2012, Dai et al. types, and experimental types (pot or field) were
2020). Studies have shown that biochar addition also the important factors. A few meta-analysis studies
enhances soil chemical properties, such as soil pH, have been conducted on the effects of biochar on
cation exchange capacity (CEC), and soil total carbon soil chemical properties, and no study has compre-
(TC), ensuring nutrient retention and soil fertility hensively examined the influence of experimental
(Bera et al. 2016, Giagnoni et al. 2019). Furthermore, conditions on soil chemical properties.
some studies have reported inconsistent findings To fill this knowledge gap, we conducted a meta-
on the effects of biochar on soil chemical proper- analysis to compare the effects of different manage-
ties due to various factors, including climate, soil ment conditions (experiment duration, type of crop,
properties, planting systems, and biochar properties and biochar application rate), soil properties (soil

273
Original Paper Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

texture and initial soil pH), pyrolysis conditions temperature) and biochar properties (biochar pH,
(feedstock and pyrolysis temperature), and biochar carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and C : N ratio
properties (biochar pH, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, of biochar). Ultimately, 682 comparisons with soil
hydrogen, and C : N ratio of biochar) on soil chemical pH data, 326 comparisons with soil EC data, 208
properties in order to provide a scientific basis for comparisons with soil CEC data, 293 comparisons
the selective application of biochar. In addition, this with SOC, 269 comparisons with total carbon, and
study aimed to determine the long-term effects of 142 comparisons with the C : N ratio of soil were
biochar on the improvement of soil environments. obtained from 138 previously published studies.
The studies included in our dataset were from the
MATERIAL AND METHODS continents of Asia, Europe, America, Africa, and
Australia (Figure 1).
Data collection. The ISI Web of Science, Science Data categorisation and treatment. For each of
Direct, and Google Scholar databases were searched the investigated soil chemical properties, mean effect
for reports on the effects of biochar addition to agri- sizes were also compared when data were pooled
cultural soils on soil chemical properties published into different categories according to management
before May 2022. The keywords used for the literature conditions, soil properties, pyrolysis conditions and
search were biochar and soil chemical properties biochar properties. For the meta-analysis, the dura-
and/or soil pH and/or electrical conductivity (EC) tion of the experiment (the time since biochar was
and/or cation exchange capacity and/or soil organic applied) was categorised into four levels (< 3 months,
carbon and/or soil total carbon and/or soil carbon- or 3–6 months, or 6–12 months, or > 12 months).
nitrogen ratio (C : N ratio). We only included studies Biochar application rates were grouped into low
that compared the changes between control (i.e., (≤ 20 t/ha), medium (21–40 t/ha), high (41–80 t/ha),
without biochar) and biochar-amended soils to form and very high (> 80 t/ha) application rates (Omondi
the literature database used for this meta-analysis. et al. 2016). Soil acidity was categorised into three
The information or data retrieved from the pub- different levels (acidic soil with pH ≤ 6.5, neutral soil
lished articles included the measured soil chemical with pH values from 6.5 to 7.5, and alkaline soil with
properties mentioned above, management conditions pH > 7.5). Soil texture was classified according to
(cropping system, experiment duration, and biochar the USDA Soil Classification System into fine (clay,
application rate), soil properties (soil texture and soil clay loam, silty clay loam, and silty clay), medium
pH), pyrolysis conditions (feedstock and pyrolysis (loam, silt loam, and silt), and coarse (sandy loam,

Figure 1. Locations of studies included in our meta-analysis

274
Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289 Original Paper

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

sandy clay loam, loamy sand, and sand) texture classes our analysis (Figure 2). When separating the dataset
(Cayuela et al. 2017). Biochar was categorised based into different categories, we observed that biochar
on feedstock as crop residue biochar, wood biochar, significantly increased soil pH, SOC, and C : N ratio
manure biochar, and sludge biochar. Biochar pyroly- in all of the investigated variable groups, except
sis temperatures were grouped into four categories for the soil pH and SOC in the oxygen content of
(≤ 400 °C, 401–500 °C, 501–600 °C, and > 600 °C). the biochar variable (Figure 3, Table 1). Moreover,
Furthermore, studies were grouped according to type of crop, sand, silt, clay content, initial soil pH,
biochar acidity at pH < 6.0, pH 6.0–8.0, and pH > 8.0; feedstock materials, pyrolysis temperature, carbon,
biochar carbon of < 50, 50–75, and > 75%; biochar nitrogen, the hydrogen content of biochar, and the
nitrogen of < 0.5, 0.5–1, and > 1%; biochar oxygen C : N ratio of biochar had positive effects on soil EC
< 10, 10–20, and > 20%; biochar hydrogen of ≤ 3 and in the biochar addition treatments (Figure 3, Table 1).
> 3; and C : N of biochar at < 30, 30 ≤ 50, 50 ≤ 100, The experimental duration and carbon of biochar
100 ≤ 500 and > 500 (Cayuela et al. 2014, Gao et had a positive effect on soil CEC in the biochar ad-
al. 2019). The soil pH values measured with CaCl 2 dition treatments (Figure 3, Table 1).
were converted to values measured in distilled water Impacts of management conditions on the ef-
using a method described by Minasny et al. (2011). fects of biochar addition. Soil pH, SOC, and CEC
Data calculations and statistical analyses. For showed the strongest responses to biochar applica-
each standard pair-wise comparison (control and tion in experiments lasting 3–6 months. Meanwhile,
biochar treatment), the standardised mean differ- experiments lasting < 3 months, 6–12 months and >
ence Hedges’d (Hedges and Olkin 1985, Hedges et 12 months produced the most significant effect on
al. 1999) was calculated between the control and soil TC, EC, and C : N ratio, respectively (Figure 4).
biochar treatment group to determine the effect size Soil pH, SOC, and the C : N ratio showed consistent
metric. The mean effect sizes for each grouping and positive responses to horticulture, maize, and rice,
95% bootstrap confidence interval (CI) were calcu- while soil EC, CEC, and TC had the highest responses
lated using Stata 15 software (Stata, College Station, to maize, perennials, and rice, respectively (Figure 4).
USA) with Hedges-Olkin random-effects models On average, biochar effects on soil pH, SOC, TC,
(Adams et al. 1997). The effect size was considered and C:N ratio were significant when its application
to be significant if the 95% CI did not overlap zero.
While the magnitude of the mean effect d is difficult
to interpret, Cohen’s benchmark gives a rough esti- pH
mation with mean effect sizes of d > 0.8 indicating
a large effect, 0.2 < d < 0.8 a moderate effect, and EC
0 < d < 0.2 a small effect (Arft et al. 1999, Fedrowitz
et al. 2014). Rosenthal’s fail-safe number method CEC
was used to test the publication bias (Li et al. 2019).
A Pearson correlation analysis was used to explore SOC
the relationship among the effect sizes of soil chemi-
cal properties and environmental variables using the TC
R package "corrplot." An aggregated boosted tree
(ABT) analysis was carried out using the "dismo" C : N of soil
package in R (Hijmans et al. 2017) to quantitatively
and visually evaluate the relative effect of treatment
–0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
effects on soil chemical properties.
Effect size (Hedges’d)

RESULTS Figure 2. Total effect of biochar on soil pH, electrical

conductivity (EC), cation exchange capacity (CEC), soil
The overall effect of biochar on soil chemical organic carbon (SOC), soil total carbon (TC) and soil
properties. Averaged across the entire dataset, the carbon nitrogen ratio (C : N ratio). The effect size was
addition of biochar significantly increased all soil considered statistically significant if the 95% bootstrap
chemical properties (e.g., soil pH, EC, CEC, SOC, confidence interval (CI) did not include zero. The num-
TC, and C : N ratio of soil) that were considered in bers next to the bars are sample sizes for each variable

275
 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

276
Original Paper

Figure 3. Total effect of biochar on soil chemical properties (A) soil pH; (B) electrical conductivity (EC); (C) cation exchange capacity (CEC); (D) soil organic
carbon (SOC); (E) soil total carbon (TC), and (F) soil carbon nitrogen ratio (C : N ratio) of soil to biochar addition in agriculture soil under different condi-
tions. The effect size was considered statistically significant if the 95% bootstrap confidence interval (CI) did not include zero. The numbers next to the bars
are sample sizes for each variable
https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE
Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289
Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289 Original Paper

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

Table 1. Summary of the effect size Hedges’d of soil chemical properties under different conditions

Variable pH EC CEC SOC TC C : N ratio

0.38 0.13 0.31 0.46 0.42 0.44
Experimental duration
(0.19–0.56) (–0.04–0.30) (0.08–0.53) (0.29–0.64) (0.23–0.62) (0.19–0.69)
0.35 0.27 0.26 0.50 0.26 0.53
Type of crop
(0.16–0.53) (0.10–0.44) (0.03–0.49) (0.31–0.69) (0.07–0.46) (0.31–0.74)
0.41 0.15 0.08 0.49 0.51 0.36
Rate of application
(0.22–0.61) (–0.01–0.30) (–0.1–0.27) (0.28–0.69) (–0.0–1.07) (0.19–0.54)
0.31 0.19 0.19 0.47 0.37 0.37
Soil texture
(0.15–0.47) (0.02–0.35) (–0.0–0.40) (0.30–0.65) (–0.1–0.90) (0.07–0.68)
0.41 0.27 0.17 0.48 0.17 0.45
Sand (%)
(0.27–0.55) (0.07–0.47) (–0.0–0.43) (0.26–0.71) (–0.0–0.40) (0.21–0.70)
0.41 0.30 0.29 0.56 0.09 0.45
Silt (%)
(0.23–0.58) (0.10–0.50) (–0.0–0.59) (0.25–0.87) (–0.1–0.32) (0.20–0.70)
0.39 0.25 0.23 0.49 0.23 0.36
Clay (%)
(0.23–0.55) (0.05–0.45) (–0.0–0.49) (0.27–0.70) (–0.0–0.50) (0.11–0.60)
0.60 0.17 0.12 0.46 0.46 0.47
Initial soil pH
(0.11–1.08) (0.02–0.33) (–0.0–0.32) (0.30–0.63) (0.10–0.82) (0.28–0.66)
0.36 0.14 0.10 0.48 0.39 0.33
Feedstock materials
(0.23–0.50) (–0.02–0.30) (–0.1–0.30) (0.31–0.64) (0.06–0.71) (0.16–0.50)
0.37 0.25 0.17 0.50 0.31 0.44
Temperature
(0.25–0.48) (0.09–0.41) (–0.0–0.37) (0.33–0.68) (0.08–0.54) (0.22–0.66)
0.27 0.16 0.12 0.50 0.53 0.60
Biochar pH
(0.01–0.52) (–0.01–0.32) (–0.0–0.32) (0.33–0.67) (0.26–0.80) (0.27–0.94)
0.35 0.25 0.28 0.52 0.19 0.45
Carbon (%)
(0.18–0.52) (0.08–0.43) (0.06–0.51) (0.33–0.71) (0.01–0.37) (0.26–0.64)
0.37 0.30 0.27 0.49 0.37 0.42
Nitrogen (%)
(0.17–0.57) (0.04–0.55) (–0.0–0.61) (0.30–0.67) (–0.1–0.85) (0.20–0.64)
0.31 0.37 0.07 0.86 0.64 0.45
Oxygen (%)
(–0.01–0.62) (–0.12–0.86) (–0.5–0.69) (0.00–1.72) (0.22–1.07) (0.02–0.89)
0.36 0.35 0.05 0.64 0.90 0.44
Hydrogen (%)
(0.12–0.60) (0.00–0.70) (–0.5–0.63) (0.14–1.14) (–0.3–2.14) (0.07–0.80)
0.36 0.44 0.45 0.51 0.32 0.38
C : N of biochar
(0.23–0.49) (0.030–0.85) (–0.0–0.91) (0.31–0.71) (0.12–0.51) (0.03–0.73)
0.39 0.21 0.20 0.50 0.35 0.44
Overall
(0.33–0.42) (0.17–0.26) (0.14–0.26) (0.44–0.54) (0.27–0.42) (0.38–0.48)

Bold numbers represented significant changes when the 95% confidence interval of the effect size did not overlap
with zero. pH – soil pH; EC – electrical conductivity; CEC – cation exchange capacity; SOC – soil organic carbon;
TC – soil total carbon; C : N ratio – soil carbon nitrogen ratio

rate was higher than 40 t/ha, while its effects on soil medium texture soil than in soil with other textures,
EC were higher when the rate was between 21 and while soil pH and CEC had the highest responses to
40 t/ha. However, the effects on soil CEC were not coarse texture. In contrast soil, EC had the highest
significant at any of the application rates (Figure 4). response to fine texture soils (Figure 5). On average,
Impacts of soil properties on the effects of bio- soil pH, CEC, SOC, TC, and the C : N ratio showed
char addition. In general, treatment effects on soil consistently positive responses to biochar amend-
pH, EC, SOC, TC, and the C : N ratio increased with ment at a lower initial soil pH (acidic), whereas soil
soil texture and initial soil pH. The effect size of EC showed a positive response when the initial soil
SOC, TC, and the C : N ratio was generally greater in pH was alkaline (Figure 5).

277
Original Paper Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

(A) (B) (C)

(D) (E) (F)

Figure 4. Effect size Hedges'd for the soil chemical properties (A) soil pH; (B) electrical conductivity (EC); (C)
cation exchange capacity (CEC); (D) soil organic carbon (SOC); (E) soil total carbon (TC), and (F) soil carbon
nitrogen ratio (C : N ratio) of soil under different management conditions (experiment duration, type of crop, and
biochar application rate). The effect size was considered statistically significant if the 95% bootstrap confidence
interval did not include zero. The numbers next to the bars are sample sizes for each variable

278
Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289 Original Paper

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

(A) (B) (C)

(D) (E) (F)

Figure 5. Effect size Hedges'd for the soil chemical properties (A) soil pH; (B) electrical conductivity (EC); (C)
cation exchange capacity (CEC); (D) soil organic carbon (SOC); (E) soil total carbon (TC), and (F) soil carbon
nitrogen ratio (C : N ratio) under different soil properties (soil texture and initial soil pH). The effect size was
considered statistically significant if the 95% bootstrap confidence interval did not include zero. The numbers
next to the bars are sample sizes for each variable

279
Original Paper Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

Impacts of biochar pyrolysis conditions on the between any two effect sizes of TC, EC, and CEC. In
effects of biochar application. Biochar from dif- addition, no significant relationships were found for
ferent feedstocks significantly effects on soil chemi- the soil C : N ratio with soil pH and SOC (Figure 8).
cal properties. Wood biochar and manure biochar Key drivers of changes in soil chemical proper-
produced the strongest effects on soil pH and EC, ties. We conducted an aggregated boosted tree (ABT)
respectively, while sewage sludge biochar had the analysis to compare the relative importance of man-
most significant effect on SOC, TC, and C : N ratio agement conditions, soil properties, biochar pyrolysis
(Figure 6). Overall, the effects on soil pH, SOC, conditions, and biochar properties on the soil chemical
and the C : N ratio were generally positive regard- properties. Overall, 71.6–81.6% of the variance in soil
less of all the biochar pyrolysis temperatures. The pH, EC, CEC, SOC, TC, and the C : N ratio could be
highest effects on TC and soil EC were observed at explained by the first four factors that were different for
when biochar pyrolysis temperatures were ≤ 400 °C each soil chemical property (Figure 9). Moreover, the
and 401–500 °C, respectively. Meanwhile, biochar initial soil pH (31.6%), biochar application rate (27.0%),
pyrolysis temperature of 501–600 °C generated the and biochar pH (12.1%) were important in explain-
strongest effects for SOC and the soil C : N ratio ing the variation of soil pH (Figure 9A); the biochar
(Figure 6). application rate (25.5%), soil pH (16.4%), biochar pH
Impacts of biochar properties on the effects (15.4%), and biochar carbon (14.0%) were important
of biochar application. A biochar pH value > 8.0, for soil EC (Figure 9B); the sand content (31.6%), silt
carbon content > 50%, nitrogen content > 0.5%, hy- content (15.7%), and experimental duration (15.5%)
drogen content < 3%, and C : N ratio < 30, significantly were important for soil CEC (Figure 9C); the initial
increased the soil pH, respectively (Figure 7A). The soil pH (26.2%), pyrolysis temperature (19.3%), biochar
magnitude of increase in soil EC was significant when application rate (19.0%), and biochar carbon (14.2%)
biochar pH was 6.0–8.0, carbon content was < 75%, were important for SOC (Figure 9D); the biochar ap-
nitrogen was > 0.5%, oxygen was 10–20%, all hydrogen plication rate (48.0%) and biochar carbon (15.4%) were
content conditions, and the C : N ratio of biochar was important for TC (Figure 9E); and the biochar appli-
< 30 and between 50–100 (Figure 7B). In compari- cation rate (36.3%) and biochar carbon (26.2%) were
son, soil CEC was not noticeably affected by biochar also important for the C : N ratio of soil (Figure 9F).
properties, with the exception of the carbon content Together, these results suggest that the biochar ap-
of biochar between 50–75%, nitrogen > 1%, and the plication rate, initial soil pH, and sand content in
C : N ratio of biochar 30–50 and > 500 (Figure 7C). the soil were the major drivers of the change in soil
The effect of biochar application on SOC was sig- chemical properties in biochar amended soils.
nificantly positive under all biochar pH, carbon,
nitrogen, oxygen (except for 10–20%), hydrogen, DISCUSSIONS
and C : N ratios (except for > 500) (Figure 7D). The
effect of biochar application on TC was significantly In this meta-analysis that used data from pub-
positive when the biochar pH value was higher than lished experiments conducted worldwide, we found
6.0, nitrogen was between 0.5–1%, all oxygen and that biochar amendment can significantly improve
hydrogen content groups, and the biochar C : N ratio soil chemical properties, and biochar addition can
was > 30 (Figure 7E). The biochar pH, carbon, nitro- increase pH, EC, CEC, SOC, TC, and the C : N ratio
gen (except for > 1%), oxygen, hydrogen, and biochar of agricultural soil (Figure 2 and Table 1). Moreover,
C : N ratio (except for > 50) exhibited an overall effect when biochar was added to soils, the soil chemi-
on the soil C:N ratio (Figure 7F). cal properties changed in a way that was related to
Correlation analysis among mean effect sizes of experimental conditions, soil properties, pyrolysis
differences in soil chemical properties. Significant conditions, and biochar properties (Figure 3).
positive correlations were found among any two effect Effects of biochar on soil pH. Soil pH is an im-
sizes of soil pH, TC, and SOC (Figure 8). A significant portant indicator of soil properties, and it has a great
positive correlation was also found between effect influence on soil fertility and crop growth (Šimek and
sizes of TC and the soil C : N ratio, as well as the effect Cooper 2002). Our meta-analysis showed that the
sizes of soil pH and CEC. The effect sizes of the soil use of biochar as a soil amendment significantly (P <
C : N ratio was negatively related to EC (Figure 8). 0.01) increased soil pH (Figure 2, Table 1), depending
However, there were no significant relationships on experimental duration, soil texture, initial soil

280
Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289 Original Paper

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

(A) (B) (C)

(D) (E) (F)

Figure 6. Effect size Hedges'd for the soil chemical properties (A) soil pH; (B) electrical conductivity (EC); (C)
cation exchange capacity (CEC); (D) soil organic carbon (SOC); (E) soil total carbon (TC), and (F) soil carbon
nitrogen ratio (C : N ratio) to biochar addition in agriculture soil under different pyrolysis conditions (feedstock
and pyrolysis temperature). The effect size was considered statistically significant if the 95% bootstrap confidence
interval did not include zero. The numbers next to the bars are sample sizes for each variable

281
Original Paper Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

(A) (B) (C)

(D) (E) (F)

Figure 7. Effect size Hedges'd for the soil chemical properties (A) soil pH; (B) electrical conductivity (EC); (C)
cation exchange capacity (CEC); (D) soil organic carbon (SOC); (E) soil total carbon (TC), and (F) soil carbon
nitrogen ratio (C : N ratio) to biochar addition in agriculture soil under different biochar properties (biochar
pH, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and C : N ratio of biochar). The effect size was considered statistically
significant if the 95% bootstrap confidence interval did not include zero. The numbers next to the bars are
sample sizes for each variable

282
Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289 Original Paper

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

1 Figure 8. Coefficients and P-values

of the correlations among mean
TC 0.98 0.66 –0.17
0.8 effect sizes of soil pH, electrical
conductivity (EC), cation exchange
0.6 capacity (CEC), soil organic carbon
SOC 0.68 0.11 –0.07 (SOC), soil total carbon (TC) and
0.4 soil carbon nitrogen ratio (C : N
ratio) measurements for the tested
studies. Asterisks highlight signifi-
pH 0.06 0.4 0.15 0.2
cant P-values (*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01;
***P < 0.001)
0

C:N 0.11
–0.2

–0.4
EC 0.14
–0.6

CEC –0.8

–1

pH, biochar pyrolysis conditions, biochar pH, or the Moreover, applying acidic biochar to alkaline soils
biochar application rate (Figure 3, Figures 4A–7A). may improve soil pH, while neutral biochar might
Biochar pH depends on feedstock materials and py- decrease the soil pH of alkaline soils (Hailegnaw et
rolysis conditions and determines its effect on soil al. 2019). Because most biochars are alkaline, limited
pH (Lehmann and Joseph 2009, Shaaban et al. 2018). information is available on biochar application to
In general, biochar pH ranges from 5.9 to 12.3, with alkaline soils (Yu et al. 2019). Therefore, the effects
an average of 8.9 (Ahmad et al. 2014). The potential of soil pH changes on plant growth in alkaline soils
of biochar ameliorating soil acidity is related to its caused by biochar application need to be examined.
alkalinity (Shaaban et al. 2018) and application rate Furthermore, it should be noted that the effect of
(Purakayastha et al. 2019). Biochar generally has biochar on improving soil pH progressively dimin-
a higher pH than the soil to which it was applied ishes as time passes (Molnár et al. 2016). Within
(Liang et al. 2016, El-Naggar et al. 2019); thus, as the 12 months, biochar application increases soil pH,
application rate increases, the soil pH also increases yet after more than 12 months, the effect on soil pH
(Molnár et al. 2016, Laird et al. 2017). This is likely is not significant (Figure 4). Oxidation and leaching
because calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium processes may reduce the biochar effects and pH
base ions exist in biochar in the form of oxides and with time. This was demonstrated by Slavich et al.
soluble carbonates, which dissolve in water and be- (2013) in a study showing decreasing effects of bio-
come alkaline, thus neutralising soil acidity (Tan et char made from animal manure over a few cropping
al. 2017). Moreover, the initial soil pH is important seasons. As the effect of biochar on improving soil
in determining the effect of biochar on soil pH. pH will weaken over time, the application period of
Due to biochar’s alkaline nature, acidic soils re- biochar should be considered when using biochar
sponded better to biochar applications compared to to improve acidic soil.
neutral and alkaline soils (Farhangi-Abriz et al. 2021). Effects of biochar on soil EC and CEC. Soil soluble
Since various biochar field trials are performed on salt is directly proportional to EC, so changes in soil
acidic soils, applying an acid-neutralising material soluble salt can be inferred from changes in the EC
such as biochar is the most effective practice to in- value of soil solutions (Corwin and Lesch 2005). When
crease yield and nutrient availability in such soils. biochar is applied, the soil EC value significantly in-

283
Original Paper Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

(A) (B) (C)

(D) (E) (F)

Figure 9. The relative influence of experimental condition, soil properties, biochar pyrolysis condition and bio-
char properties factors on the soil chemical properties ((A) soil pH; (B) electrical conductivity (EC); (C) cation
exchange capacity (CEC); (D) soil organic carbon (SOC); (E) soil total carbon (TC), and (F) soil carbon nitrogen
ratio (C : N ratio)) based on aggregated boosted tree model by analysis using the "dismo" package of R 4.0.2

creases (Table 1, Figure 3), which may be caused by the beneficial for plant growth. When in contact with
soluble ash it contains, thus improving the soil base the soil, the active groups on the biochar surface,
saturation (Liang et al. 2006). Our results indicated such as -COOH or -OH, react with metal cations in
that the biochar application rate (25.5%) is impor- the soil and form metal ion complexes, resulting in
tant in explaining the variation of EC (Figure 9B). electrostatic adsorption (Tan et al. 2017). These func-
The biochar made from different raw materials ex- tional groups are negatively charged; thus, biochar
hibits different EC, between 0.4 and 3.2, which is has a high CEC, which increases soil CEC (Figure 2).
higher than soil’s. However, some studies showed Tan et al. (2017) indicated that soil CEC increased
that soil EC was negatively correlated (Alotaibi and by 0.92 cmol/kg when the biochar addition ratio
Schoenau 2016) or not correlated (Abujabhah et al. was 1 : 100 and continues to increase with biochar
2016b) with the amount of biochar applied. This is addition compared to the no biochar addition soil.
mainly because biochar increases the soil porosity However, the effect of biochar on soil CEC is related
and increases the leaching of water-soluble nutrient to biochar feedstock materials, biochar production
ions to the deep soil, and thus reduces the content conditions, and soil type (Figure 3C). The probable
of soluble ions in the soil. mechanisms have been extensively discussed (Liang
CEC is used to estimate the ability of soil to adsorb, et al. 2006, Lehmann and Joseph 2009, Hagner et al.
retain, and exchange cations and is, therefore, an 2016, Shaaban et al. 2018). Our meta-analysis indi-
important indicator of soil quality. A higher CEC cated that biochar significantly improves the CEC
indicates a high nutrient fixation capacity, which is of low CEC and acidic soils, but has no significant

284
Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289 Original Paper

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

effect on CEC for alkaline soils with high CEC or content, complex aromatised structure, and inher-
soils with high organic matter content (Figure 5C). ent chemical inertness. Therefore, it may change
This may be because biochar is rich in functional the composition of soil organic matter to increase
groups, it has a high adsorption capacity and can the total SOC content. Applying biochar with a high
absorb mineral elements (Lehmann and Joseph 2009, C : N ratio results in microbial nitrogen immobilisa-
Ahmad et al. 2014, Laghari et al. 2015). tion and carbon substrate input in soil (Kirkby et al.
It should be noted that biochar can increase soil 2014); therefore, decreased soil microbial activities
CEC, particularly in sandy-textured soils (Figure 9). due to the high biochar C : N ratio would reduce soil
In addition, the duration of biochar application and greenhouse gas fluxes and increase SOC (Cleveland
type of crop also affects the effect of biochar on soil and Liptzin 2007, Kirkby et al. 2014). Biochar with
CEC. It is acknowledged that a positive correlation moderate alkalinity would enhance SOC mineralisa-
between soil clay content and CEC exists (Ersahin et tion, while that with extremely high or low pH values
al. 2006, Gao et al. 2021). With biochar amendment, would cause macronutrient deficiencies. Applying
the CEC of coarse soils increased compared to non- biochar in acidic soils enhances its consumption by
coarse textured soils (Figure 5C). This may be due microorganisms for balanced soil pH conditions,
to the loose structure of sandy soil, which makes it which may trigger a vigorous priming effect on na-
easy for biomass charcoal to pass. Therefore, the tive SOC mineralisation (Foereid et al. 2011, Jones
abundant functional groups on biochar surfaces and et al. 2011). Otherwise, adding biochar to neutral or
their larger surface areas can be used to increase soil alkaline soils would inhibit soil carbon mineralisation
cation exchange capacity, absorb more nutrient ions, due to enhanced soil pH (Liu et al. 2019a).
avoid nutrient loss, and effectively improve soil fertil- Our study showed that the biochar application
ity and fertiliser utilisation efficiency. Consistently, is the most influential variable of biochar effect
Burrell et al. (2016) and Razzaghi et al. (2020) showed on SOC among all variables. Biochar comprises
in their experimental and statistical data models that highly concentrated aromatic ring structures, with
coarse-textured soils could be improved structur- hydroxyl, carboxyl, carbonyl groups, and lactone
ally by biochar application. The CEC of agricultural structures on their surfaces, thereby increasing
soils gives an overall idea of their fertility status and soil carbon content (Lyu et al. 2018, Faloye et al.
water holding capacity (Obalum et al. 2013), thus, 2019). Moreover, the porous biochar structure can
low-CEC soils lose nutrient ions with rainfall or ir- increase the stability of soil organic carbon against
rigation water due to its weak adsorption capacity biodegradation, thereby reducing its mineralisation
(Gregory and Nortcliff 2013). rate (Liu et al. 2019b). Due to abundant surface
Effects of biochar on SOC, TC, and the C : N ra- morphological structures, biochar can adsorb soil
tio. Our results indicated that the effect of biochar carbon onto its outer surfaces, reducing the avail-
on SOC, TC, and the C : N ratio of soil depended on ability of soil organic carbon and inhibiting the
soil pH, biochar properties, application amounts, degradation of adsorbed carbon, thus indirectly
experimental duration, and type of crop (Table 1, increasing the carbon content of soil (Hartley et
Figure 3). Several other studies have confirmed an al. 2016, Tan et al. 2017, Yu et al. 2019).
increase in soil carbon and the C : N ratio by the addi- Overall, our results showed that the effect size
tion of biochar (Agegnehu et al. 2017, Tan et al. 2017, (Hedges’d) of the biochar was greatest for SOC (0.50),
Shaaban et al. 2018). Moreover, our study indicated the C : N ratio of soil (0.44), soil pH (0.39), TC (0.35),
that soil pH is important for explaining the variation EC (0.21), and CEC (0.20). Among the various factors
of SOC (26.2%), whereas the biochar application rate examined using the ABT analysis, 71.6–81.6% of the
is important for explaining the variation of soil TC variance in soil pH, EC, CEC, SOC, TC, and the C : N
(48.0%) or the C : N ratio (36.3%) (Figure 9). ratio could be explained by the first four factors that
SOC, the main energy source and key trigger for were different for each soil chemical properties. In
nutrient availability, is a major soil factor affecting conclusion, our study suggests that improving soil
plant growth. Its formation is a long-term process chemical properties by adding biochar is affected not
involving soil retention of exogenous organic ma- only by biochar application and biochar properties
terials, affected by climate, management practices, but also by local soil environmental factors, espe-
and soil properties. Biochar has high chemical and cially soil pH and soil texture. Improving agricultural
microbiological stability in soils due to its high carbon soil properties by adding biochar requires not only

285
Original Paper Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

a particular type and implementation of manage- Arft A.M., Walker M.D., Gurevitch J., Alatalo J.M., Bret-Harte M.S.,
ment practices, but also the local environmental Dale M., Diemer M., Gugerl F., Henry G.H.R., Jones M.H., Hol-
factors that should be considered when proposing lister R.D., Jónsdóttir I.S., Laine K., Lévesque E., Marion G.M.,
a land management plan. Furthermore, there is an Molau U., Molgaard P., Nordenhäll U., Raszhivin V., Robinson
urgent need for long-term agriculture studies exam- C.H., Starr G., Stenström A., Stenström M., Totland O., Turner
ining changes in soil chemical properties in order P.L., Walker L.J., Webber P.J., Welker J.M., Wookey P.A. (1999):
to improve our understanding of the potential of Responses of tundra plants to experimental warming: meta-anal-
applications of biochar in global agriculture and ysis of the international tundra experiment. Ecological Mono-
soil environments. graphs, 69: 491–511.
Bayabil H.K., Stoof C.R., Lehmann J.C., Yitaferu B., Steenhuis T.S.
Acknowledgement. We would like to convey our (2015): Assessing the potential of biochar and charcoal to im-
special thanks to various authors and organisations prove soil hydraulic properties in the humid Ethiopian High-
for their various contributions to the data used in lands: the Anjeni watershed. Geoderma, 243–244: 115–123.
this meta-analysis review. The authors gratefully Bera T., Collins H.P., Alva A.K., Purakayastha T.J., Patra A.K. (2016):
acknowledge researchers at the Shaanxi Provincial Biochar and manure effluent effects on soil biochemical proper-
Land Engineering Construction Group, for their ties under corn production. Applied Soil Ecology, 107: 360–367.
help with the field experiments. Borchard N., Schirrmann M., Cayuela M.L., Kammann C., Wrage-
Mönnig N., Estavillo J.M., Fuertes-Mendizábal T., Sigua G., Spo-
kas K., Ippolito J.A., Novak J. (2019): Biochar, soil and land-use
REFERENCES
interactions that reduce nitrate leaching and N2O emissions:
Abujabhah I.S., Bound S.A., Doyle R., Bowman J.P. (2016a): Effects a meta-analysis. Science of The Total Environment, 651: 2354–2364.
of biochar and compost amendments on soil physico-chemical Borchard N., Siemens J., Ladd B., Möller A., Amelung W. (2014):
properties and the total community within a temperate agricul- Application of biochars to sandy and silty soil failed to increase
tural soil. Applied Soil Ecology, 98: 243–253. maize yield under common agricultural practice. Soil and Tillage
Abujabhah I.S., Doyle R., Bound S.A., Bowman J.P. (2016b): The ef- Research, 144: 184–194.
fect of biochar loading rates on soil fertility, soil biomass, poten- Burrell L.D., Zehetner F., Rampazzo N., Wimmer B., Soja G. (2016):
tial nitrification, and soil community metabolic profiles in three Long-term effects of biochar on soil physical properties. Geo-
different soils. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 16: 2211–2222. derma, 282: 96–102.
Adams C., Soares K. (1997): The Cochrane Collaboration and the Case S.D.C., McNamara N.P., Reay D.S., Whitaker J. (2012): The ef-
Process of Systematic Reviewing. Advances in Psychiatric Treat- fect of biochar addition on N2O and CO2 emissions from a sandy
ment, 3: 240–246. loam soil – the role of soil aeration. Soil Biology and Biochemis-
Agegnehu G., Nelson P.N., Bird M.I. (2016): The effects of biochar, try, 51: 125–134.
compost and their mixture and nitrogen fertilizer on yield and Cayuela M.L., Aguilera E., Sanz-Cobena A., Adams D.C., Abalos D.,
nitrogen use efficiency of barley grown on a Nitisol in the high- Barton L., Ryals R., Silver W.L., Alfaro M.A., Pappa V.A., Smith
lands of Ethiopia. Science of The Total Environment, 569–570: P., Garnier J., Billen G., Bouwman L., Bondeau A., Lassaletta L.
869–879. (2017): Direct nitrous oxide emissions in Mediterranean climate
Agegnehu G., Srivastava A.K., Bird M.I. (2017): The role of biochar cropping systems: emission factors based on a meta-analysis of
and biochar-compost in improving soil quality and crop perfor- available measurement data. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Envi-
mance: a review. Applied Soil Ecology, 119: 156–170. ronment, 238: 25–35.
Ahmad M., Rajapaksha A.U., Lim J.E., Ming Z., Bolan N., Mohan Cayuela M.L., van Zwieten L., Singh B.P., Jeffery S., Roig A.,
D., Vithanage M., Lee S.S., Ok Y.S. (2014): Biochar as a sorbent Sánchez-Monedero M.A. (2014): Biochar’s role in mitigating soil
for contaminant management in soil and water: a review. Che- nitrous oxide emissions: a review and meta-analysis. Agricul-
mosphere, 99: 19–33. ture, Ecosystems and Environment, 191: 5–16.
Ajayi A.E., Horn R. (2016): Modification of chemical and hydro- Chen D., Liu X.Y., Bian R.J., Cheng K., Zhang X.H., Zheng J.F., Jo-
physical properties of two texturally differentiated soils due to seph S., Crowley D., Pan G.X., Li L.Q. (2018): Effects of biochar
varying magnitudes of added biochar. Soil and Tillage Research, on availability and plant uptake of heavy metals – a meta-analy-
164: 34–44. sis. Journal of Environmental Management, 222: 76–85.
Alotaibi K.D., Schoenau J.J. (2016): Application of two bioenergy Cheng J.Z., Lee X.Q., Gao W.C., Chen Y., Pan W., Tang Y. (2017):
byproducts with contrasting carbon availability to a prairie Effect of biochar on the bioavailability of difenoconazole and
soil: three year crop response and changes in soil biological and microbial community composition in a pesticide-contaminated
chemical properties. Agronomy, 6: 13. soil. Applied Soil Ecology, 121: 185–192.

286
Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289 Original Paper

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

Cleveland C.C., Liptzin D. (2007): C : N : P stoichiometry in soil: is Giagnoni L., Maienza A., Baronti S., Vaccari F.P., Genesio L., Taiti
there a "redfield ratio" for the microbial biomass? Biogeochem- C., Martellini T., Scodellini R., Cincinelli A., Costa C., Mancuso
istry, 85: 235–252. S., Renella G. (2019): Long-term soil biological fertility, volatile
Corwin D.L., Lesch S.M. (2005): Apparent soil electrical conductiv- organic compounds and chemical properties in a vineyard soil
ity measurements in agriculture. Computers and Electronics in after biochar amendment. Geoderma, 344: 127–136.
Agriculture, 46: 11–43. Gregory P.J., Nortcliff S. (2013): Soil Conditions and Plant
Dai Y.H., Zheng H., Jiang Z.X., Xing B.S. (2020): Combined effects Growth. 1st Edition. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN:
of biochar properties and soil conditions on plant growth: a me- 9781405197700
ta-analysis. Science of The Total Environment, 713: 136635. Gurevitch J., Koricheva J., Nakagawa S., Stewart G. (2018): Meta-
De la Rosa J.M., Paneque M., Miller A.Z., Knicker H. (2014): Relat- analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature, 555: 175–
ing physical and chemical properties of four different biochars 182.
and their application rate to biomass production of Lolium per- Hagner M., Kemppainen R., Jauhiainen L., Tiilikkala K., Setälä H.
enne on a Calcic Cambisol during a pot experiment of 79 days. (2016): The effects of birch (Betula spp.) biochar and pyrolysis
Science of The Total Environment, 499: 175–184. temperature on soil properties and plant growth. Soil and Tillage
Deal C., Brewer C.E., Brown R.C., Okure M.A.E., Amoding A. Research, 163: 224–234.
(2012): Comparison of kiln-derived and gasifier-derived biochars Hailegnaw N.S., Mercl F., Pračke K., Száková J., Tlustoš P. (2019):
as soil amendments in the humid tropics. Biomass and Bioen- Mutual relationships of biochar and soil pH, CEC, and exchange-
ergy, 37: 161–168. able base cations in a model laboratory experiment. Journal of
Edeh I.G., Mašek O., Buss W. (2020): A meta-analysis on biochar’s Soils and Sediments, 19: 2405–2416.
effects on soil water properties – new insights and future research Hall D.J.M., Bell R.W. (2015): Biochar and compost increase crop
challenges. Science of The Total Environment, 714: 136857. yields but the effect is short term on sandplain soils of Western
El-Naggar A., Lee S.S., Rinklebe J., Farooq M., Song H., Sarmah Australia. Pedosphere, 25: 720–728.
A.K., Zimmerman A.R., Ahmad M., Shaheen S.M., Ok Y.S. Hartley W., Riby P., Waterson J. (2016): Effects of three different
(2019): Biochar application to low fertility soils: a review of cur- biochars on aggregate stability, organic carbon mobility and mi-
rent status, and future prospects. Geoderma, 337: 536–554. cronutrient bioavailability. Journal of Environmental Manage-
Ersahin S., Gunal H., Kutlu T., Yetgin B., Coban S. (2006): Estimat- ment, 181: 770–778.
ing specific surface area and cation exchange capacity in soils Hedges L.V., Olkin I. (1985): Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis.
using fractal dimension of particle-size distribution. Geoderma, New York, Academic Press.
136: 588–597. Hedges L.V., Gurevitch J., Curtis P.S. (1999): The meta-analysis of
Faloye O.T., Alatise M.O., Ajayi A.E., Ewulo B.S. (2019): Effects of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology, 80: 1150–1156.
biochar and inorganic fertilizer applications on growth, yield and Herath H.M.S.K., Camps-Arbestain M., Hedley M. (2013): Effect
water use efficiency of maize under deficit irrigation. Agricul- of biochar on soil physical properties in two contrasting soils: an
tural Water Management, 217: 165–178. Alfisol and an Andisol. Geoderma, 209–210: 188–197.
Farhangi-Abriz S., Torabian S., Qin R., Noulas C., Lu Y., Gao S. Hijmans R.J., Phillips S., Leathwick J., Elith J. (2017): Species dis-
(2021): Biochar effects on yield of cereal and legume crops using tribution modelling with R. R package "Dismo". Available at:
meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 775: 145869. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/dismo/vignettes/sdm.
Fedrowitz K., Koricheva J., Baker S.C., Lindenmayer D.B., Palik B., pdf (accessed March 13, 2018)
Rosenvald R., Beese W., Franklin J.F., Kouki J., Macdonald E., Jeffery S., Meinders M.B.J., Stoof C.R., Bezemer T.M., van de
Messier C., Sverdrup-Thygeson A., Gustafsson L. (2014): Can Voorde T.F.J., Mommer L., van Groenigen J.W. (2015): Biochar
retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis. application does not improve the soil hydrological function of
Journal of Applied Ecology, 51: 1669–1679. a sandy soil. Geoderma, 251–252: 47–54.
Foereid B., Lehmann J., Major J. (2011): Modeling black carbon Jeffery S., Verheijen F.G.A., Kammann C., Abalos D. (2016): Biochar
degradation and movement in soil. Plant and Soil, 345: 223–236. effects on methane emissions from soils: a meta-analysis. Soil Bi-
Gao S., DeLuca T.H., Cleveland C.C. (2019): Biochar additions alter ology and Biochemistry, 101: 251–258.
phosphorus and nitrogen availability in agricultural ecosystems: Jiang Y., Carrijo D., Huang S., Chen J., Balaine N., Zhang W.J., van
a meta-analysis. Science of The Total Environment, 654: 463–472. Groenigen K.J., Linquist B. (2019): Water management to miti-
Gao Y., Shao G.C., Yang Z., Zhang K., Lu J., Wang Z.Y., Wu S.Q., Xu gate the global warming potential of rice systems: a global meta-
D. (2021): Influences of soil and biochar properties and amount analysis. Field Crops Research, 234: 47–54.
of biochar and fertilizer on the performance of biochar in im- Jien S., Wang C. (2013): Effects of biochar on soil properties and
proving plant photosynthetic rate: a meta-analysis. European erosion potential in a highly weathered soil. Catena, 110: 225–
Journal of Agronomy, 130: 126345. 233.

287
Original Paper Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

Jindo K., Sánchez-Monedero M.A., Hernández T., García C., Furu- Liu C., Wang H.L., Li P.H., Xian Q.S., Tang X.G. (2019a): Biochar’s
kawa T., Matsumoto K. (2012): Biochar influences the microbial impact on dissolved organic matter (DOM) export from a crop-
community structure during manure composting with agricul- land soil during natural rainfalls. Science of The Total Environ-
tural wastes. Science of The Total Environment, 416: 476–481. ment, 650: 1988–1995.
Jones D.L., Murphy D.V., Khalid M., Ahmad W., Edwards-Jones G., Liu X., Mao P.N., Li L.H., Ma J. (2019b): Impact of biochar applica-
DeLuca T.H. (2011): Short-term biochar-induced increase in soil tion on yield-scaled greenhouse gas intensity: a meta-analysis.
CO2 release is both biotically and abiotically mediated. Soil Biol- Science of The Total Environment, 656: 969–976.
ogy and Biochemistry, 43: 1723–1731. Lyu H.H., Gao B., He F., Zimmerman A.R., Ding C., Huang H., Tang
Kätterer T., Roobroeck D., Andrén O., Kimutai G., Karltun E., J.C. (2018): Effects of ball milling on the physicochemical and
Kirchmann H., Nyberg G., Vanlauwe B., Röing De Nowina K. sorptive properties of biochar: experimental observations and
(2019): Biochar addition persistently increased soil fertility and governing mechanisms. Environmental Pollution, 233: 54–63.
yields in maize-soybean rotations over 10 years in sub-humid re- Meng J., Tao M.M., Wang L.L., Liu X.M., Xu J.M. (2018): Changes in
gions of Kenya. Field Crops Research, 235: 18–26. heavy metal bioavailability and speciation from a Pb-Zn mining
Kirkby C.A., Richardson A.E., Wade L.J., Passioura J.B., Batten soil amended with biochars from co-pyrolysis of rice straw and
G.D., Blanchard C., Kirkegaard J.A. (2014): Nutrient availability swine manure. Science of the Total Environment, 633: 300–307.
limits carbon sequestration in arable soils. Soil Biology and Bio- Minasny B., McBratney A.B., Brough D.M., Jacquier D. (2011):
chemistry, 68: 402–409. Models relating soil pH measurements in water and calcium
Laghari M., Mirjat M.S., Hu Z.Q., Fazal S., Xiao B., Hu M., Chen Z., chloride that incorporate electrolyte concentration. European
Guo D. (2015): Effects of biochar application rate on sandy desert Journal of Soil Science, 62: 728–732.
soil properties and sorghum growth. Catena, 135: 313–320. Molnár M., Vaszita E., Farkas É., Ujaczki É., Fekete-Kertész I., Tolner
Laird D.A., Novak J.M., Collins H.P., Ippolito J.A., Karlen D.L., Lentz M., Klebercz O., Kirchkeszner C., Gruiz K., Uzinger N., Feigl V.
R.D., Sistani K.R., Spokas K., Van Pelt R.S. (2017): Multi-year and (2016): Acidic sandy soil improvement with biochar – a micro-
multi-location soil quality and crop biomass yield responses to cosm study. Science of The Total Environment, 563–564: 855–865.
hardwood fast pyrolysis biochar. Geoderma, 289: 46–53. Mukherjee A., Lal R., Zimmerman A.R. (2014): Effects of biochar
Lebrun M., Miard F., Nandillon R., Scippa G.S., Bourgerie S., Mora- and other amendments on the physical properties and green-
bito D. (2019): Biochar effect associated with compost and iron house gas emissions of an artificially degraded soil. Science of
to promote Pb and As soil stabilization and Salix viminalis L. the Total Environment, 487: 26–36.
growth. Chemosphere, 222: 810–822. Mukherjee A., Zimmerman A.R. (2013): Organic carbon and nutri-
Lehmann J., Joseph S. (2009): Biochar for environmental manage- ent release from a range of laboratory-produced biochars and
ment: an introduction. In: Lehmann J., Joseph S. (eds.): Biochar biochar-soil mixtures. Geoderma, 193–194: 122–130.
for Environmental Management Science and Technology. UK, Norini M.-P., Thouin H., Miard F., Battaglia-Brunet F., Gautret P.,
Earthscans, 1–12. ISBN: 9780367779184 Guégan R., Le Forestier L., Morabito D., Bourgerie S., Motelica-
Li M.F., Wang J., Guo D., Yang R.R., Fu H. (2019): Effect of land Heino M. (2019): Mobility of Pb, Zn, Ba, As and Cd toward soil
management practices on the concentration of dissolved organic pore water and plants (willow and ryegrass) from a mine soil
matter in soil: a meta-analysis. Geoderma, 344: 74–81. amended with biochar. Journal of Environmental Management,
Li X.X., Chen X.B., Weber-Siwirska M., Cao J.J., Wang Z.L. (2018): 232: 117–130.
Effects of rice-husk biochar on sand-based rootzone amend- Obalum S.E., Watanabe Y., Igwe C.A., Obi M.E., Wakatsuki T.
ment and creeping bentgrass growth. Urban Forestry and Urban (2013): Improving on the prediction of cation exchange capacity
Greening, 35: 165–173. for highly weathered and structurally contrasting tropical soils
Liang B., Lehmann J., Solomon D., Kinyangi J., Grossman J., O’Neill from their fine-earth fractions. Communications in Soil Science
B., Skjemstad J.O., Thies J., Luizão F.J., Petersen J., Neves E.G. and Plant Analysis, 44: 1831–1848.
(2006): Black carbon increases cation exchange capacity in soils. Omondi M.O., Xia X., Nahayo A., Liu X.Y., Korai P.K., Pan G.X.
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 70: 1719–1730. (2016): Quantification of biochar effects on soil hydrological
Liang C.F., Gascó G., Fu S.L., Méndez A., Paz-Ferreiro J. (2016): Bio- properties using meta-analysis of literature data. Geoderma,
char from pruning residues as a soil amendment: effects of pyrolysis 274: 28–34.
temperature and particle size. Soil and Tillage Research, 164: 3–10. Pandey V., Patel A., Patra D.D. (2016): Biochar ameliorates crop pro-
Lin Z.B., Liu Q., Liu G., Cowie A.L., Bei Q.C., Liu B.J., Wang X.J., ductivity, soil fertility, essential oil yield and aroma profiling in
Ma J., Zhu J.G., Xie Z.B. (2017): Effects of different biochars on basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). Ecological Engineering, 90: 361–366.
Pinus elliottii growth, N use efficiency, soil N2O and CH4 emis- Peake L.R., Reid B.J., Tang X.G. (2014): Quantifying the influence of
sions and C storage in a subtropical area of China. Pedosphere, biochar on the physical and hydrological properties of dissimilar
27: 248–261. soils. Geoderma, 235–236: 182–190.

288
Plant, Soil and Environment, 68, 2022 (6): 272–289 Original Paper

https://doi.org/10.17221/522/2021-PSE

Pranagal J., Oleszczuk P., Tomaszewska-Krojańska D., Kraska P., Unger R., Killorn R., Brewer C.E. (2011): Effects of soil application
Różyło K. (2017): Effect of biochar application on the physi- of different biochars on selected soil chemical properties. Com-
cal properties of Haplic Podzol. Soil and Tillage Research, 174: munications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 42: 2310–2321.
92–103. Vaccari F.P., Maienza A., Miglietta F., Baronti S., Di Lonardo S.,
Purakayastha T.J., Bera T., Bhaduri D., Sarkar B., Mandal S., Wade Giagnoni L., Lagomarsino A., Pozzi A., Pusceddu E., Ranieri R.,
P., Kumari S., Biswas S., Menon M., Pathak H., Tsang D.C.W. Valboa G., Genesio L. (2015): Biochar stimulates plant growth
(2019): A review on biochar modulated soil condition improve- but not fruit yield of processing tomato in a fertile soil. Agricul-
ments and nutrient dynamics concerning crop yields: pathways ture, Ecosystems and Environment, 207: 163–170.
to climate change mitigation and global food security. Chemos- Verhoeven E., Six J. (2014): Biochar does not mitigate field-scale
phere, 227: 345–365. N2O emissions in a Northern California vineyard: an assessment
Razzaghi F., Obour P.B., Arthur E. (2020): Does biochar improve across two years. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
soil water retention? A systematic review and meta-analysis. 191: 27–38.
Geoderma, 361: 114055. Wang D.Y., Fonte S.J., Parikh S.J., Six J., Scow K.M. (2017): Biochar
Sandhu S.S., Ussiri D.A.N., Kumar S., Chintala R., Papiernik S.K., additions can enhance soil structure and the physical stabiliza-
Malo D.D., Schumacher T.E. (2017): Analyzing the impacts of three tion of C in aggregates. Geoderma, 303: 110–117.
types of biochar on soil carbon fractions and physiochemical prop- Wong J.T.F., Chen X.W., Deng W.J., Chai Y.M., Ng C.W.W., Wong
erties in a corn-soybean rotation. Chemosphere, 184: 473–481. M.H. (2019): Effects of biochar on bacterial communities in
Shaaban M., Van Zwieten L., Bashir S., Younas A., Núñez-Delga- a newly established landfill cover topsoil. Journal of Environ-
do A., Chhajro M.A., Kubar K.A., Ali U., Rana M.S., Mehmood mental Management, 236: 667–673.
M.A., Hu R.G. (2018): A concise review of biochar application to Yao Q., Liu J.J., Yu Z.H., Li Y.S., Jin J., Liu X.B., Wang G.H. (2017):
agricultural soils to improve soil conditions and fight pollution. Changes of bacterial community compositions after three years
Journal of Environmental Management, 228: 429–440. of biochar application in a black soil of northeast China. Applied
Šimek M., Cooper J.E. (2002): The influence of soil pH on deni- Soil Ecology, 113: 11–21.
trification: progress towards the understanding of this interac- Yu H.W., Zou W.X., Chen J.J., Chen H., Yu Z., Huang J., Tang H.R.,
tion over the last 50 years. European Journal of Soil Science, 53: Wei X.Y., Gao B. (2019): Biochar amendment improves crop
345–354. production in problem soils: a review. Journal of Environmental
Slavich P.G., Sinclair K., Morris S.G., Kimber S.W.L., Downie A., Management, 232: 8–21.
Van Zwieten L. (2013): Contrasting effects of manure and green Zhang W.S., Liang Z.Y., He X.M., Wang X.Z., Shi X., Zou C., Chen
waste biochars on the properties of an acidic ferralsol and pro- X. (2019): The effects of controlled release urea on maize pro-
ductivity of a subtropical pasture. Plant and Soil, 366: 213–227. ductivity and reactive nitrogen losses: a meta-analysis. Environ-
Stefaniuk M., Oleszczuk P., Różyło K. (2017): Co-application of sew- mental Pollution, 246: 559–565.
age sludge with biochar increases disappearance of polycyclic Zheng J.F., Han J.M., Liu Z.W., Xia W.B., Zhang X.H., Li L.Q., Liu
aromatic hydrocarbons from fertilized soil in long term field ex- X.Y., Bian R.J., Cheng K., Zheng J.W., Pan G.X. (2017): Biochar
periment. Science of The Total Environment, 599–600: 854–862. compound fertilizer increases nitrogen productivity and eco-
Tan Z.X., Lin C.S.K., Ji X.Y., Rainey T.J. (2017): Returning biochar nomic benefits but decreases carbon emission of maize produc-
to fields: a review. Applied Soil Ecology, 116: 1–11. tion. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 241: 70–78.

Received: December 16, 2021

Accepted: May 23, 2022
Published online: June 1, 2022

289