Phytotoxicity and hormesis in common mobile organic compounds in leachates of wood-derived biochars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although addition of pyrolyzed organic materials (biochars) to soil generally results in increased growth and physiological performance of plants, neutral and negative responses have also commonly been detected. Toxicity of organic compounds generated during pyrolysis, sorbed by biochars, and then released into the soil solution, has been implicated as a possible mechanism for such negative effects. Conversely, water-soluble biochar constituents have also been suggested to have “hormetic” effects (positive effects on plants at low concentrations); however, no specific compounds responsible have been identified. We investigated the relative phytotoxicity—and possible hormetic effects—of 14 organic compounds common in aqueous extracts of freshly produced lignocellulosic biochars, using seed germination bioassays. Of the compounds examined, volatile fatty acids (VFAs: acetic, propionic, butyric, valeric, caproic, and 2-ethylbutyric acids) and phenol, showed acute phytotoxicity, with germination-based ED50 values of 1–30 mmol L−1, and 2-ethylbutyric acid showed ED50 values of 0.1–1.0 mmol L−1. Other compounds (benzene, benzoic acid, butanone, methyl salicylate, toluene, and 2,4-di-tert-butylphenol) showed toxic effects only at high concentrations close to solubility limits. Although phytotoxic at high concentrations, valeric and caproic acid also showed detectable hormetic effects on seedlings, increasing radicle extension by 5–15% at concentrations of ~ 0.01–0.1 mmol L−1. These data support the hypothesis that VFAs are the main agents responsible for phytotoxic effects of lignocellulosic biochar leachates, but that certain VFAs also have hormetic effects at low concentrations and may contribute to positive effects of biochar leachates on early plant development in some cases. Graphical Abstract
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".