ArticleScientific reports2026
Effects of rice and corn straw biochar combined with microbial inoculant on soil health in protected vegetable production.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The biochar and microbial inoculant are commonly used amendments in soil improvement, but their effectiveness in protective agriculture is currently unclear. Based on this, this study takes the pepper vegetable greenhouse located in Zhuxi Town, Chongqing as the research object, and selects biochar prepared from corn straw and rice straw, as well as microbial inoculant, as the improvement materials. Five treatments were established, including corn straw biochar alone (CB), rice straw biochar alone (RB), microbial inoculant alone (CKM), combined corn straw biochar and microbial inoculant application (CBM), and combined rice biochar and microbial inoculant application (RBM), conventional fertilization was used as a control. This study explores the changes in soil physicochemical properties of protected vegetable production under different treatments at distinct time points (first, third, and fifth months after returning field) and soil depth (0-10 cm and 10-20 cm). The results demonstrated that the overall soil bulk density increased With the increase of returning time. There was no significant difference in the soil capillary porosity or mineral-associated organic carbon content (P > 0.05), whereas the other soil properties decreased with increasing return field time. In contrast, the soil bulk density (BD) increased with increasing soil depth. Except the capillary porosity, which exhibited no significant differences at different depths (P > 0.05), all the other soil properties demonstrated downward trends with increasing depth. After 5 months of transplantation, the soil carbon pool management index of RBM treatment was higher than that of CBM treatment, with a 4.35% increase. The soil health index was 14.51% lower than that of CBM. However, the differences in soil carbon pool management index and soil health index between the two treatments did not reach a significant level. Overall, the RBM and CBM showed better improvement effects on soil carbon pool management index and soil health status, making them the better ratios for vegetable greenhouse farmland soil improvement in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.