MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7110874286 · doi:10.1016/j.plana.2025.100231

Carbon nanofertilizers in agriculture: A critical review of soil ecosystem impacts and phytotoxicity

2025· article· en· W7110874286 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Nano Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon and Quantum Dots Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityDalhousie UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSoil organic matterSoil carbonSoil biologySoil fertilitySoil biodiversitySoil healthPopulationSoil qualityLeaching (pedology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid growth in global population has placed immense pressure on food production systems. As a result, the overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in modern farming has severely reduced soil fertility and disrupted critical ecosystem functions and equilibria. There have been significant leaching and runoff losses of key mineral elements in the environment due to synthetic fertilizer application, resulting in a substantial reduction in nutrient use efficiency (NUE) in different cropping systems. Nanofertilizers (NFs) have been considered more effective and economical than synthetic fertilizers because their nanostructure regulates the delivery of nutrients and enhances plant absorption due to a high surface area to volume ratio. Different types of carbon-based nanoparticles (CNPs), such as carbon nanotubes (CNTs), carbon nanodots (CDs), and carbon nanofibers (CNFs), have been synthesized from various biological sources acting as carbon nanofertilizers (CNFs). These CNPs stimulate soil microbial and enzymatic activities, promote organic matter decomposition, enhance carbon sequestration, and improve water retention, mainly through enhanced nutrient accessibility, aggregation with soil organic matter, and a high-surface-area matrix for microbial habitat and proliferation. Although CNFs exhibit considerable potential, several critical challenges remain, including high production costs, limited knowledge of their long-term environmental behavior, and the requirement for well-defined concentration thresholds tailored to specific soil–crop systems. This review outlines the benefits, potential drawbacks, and key challenges of CNFs for plants and soil health that must be addressed to harness their full potential as plant growth stimulants and soil quality boosters. • A critical review of carbon nanofertilizers' soil ecosystem impacts. • CNFs enhance soil health, microbial activity, and carbon sequestration. • Synthesis methods and structure-activity relationships are thoroughly discussed. • Dose-dependent phytotoxicity and soil microbial risks are key concerns. • Identifies knowledge gaps and future research priorities for safe use.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Nano BiologySame topicCarbon and Quantum Dots ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207