Erich ... ???
The charcoal industry and retailers (such as you) of biochar must be desperate, because of the lack of financial profits, trying to reopen the "discussion" on the supposed "benefits" of their "product" by introducing another anonymous, who for the first (and only) time posts on this forum after the previous biochar lobbyist was carried out of the "ring" on a stretcher after a total knock out .
1/4. And what does this "research" done by the President of the Japanese Biochar Association and his "biochar friends" show or "prove" ? That the outcomes are determined by the commercial interests of the producers of biochar and the food industry (Shoro) paying for these "experiments", which are - as always - limited to time periods of one to three years ?
2. Introduction of "synthetic chemical fertilizers" in the soil food web of natural pine forests ? Short term and long term effects ?
2/6/7/8. Can you come up with any research on how indigenous European species of ectomycorrhizal macrofungi from the genus Rhizopogon, Scleroderma and Suillus associated with European pine tree species react to the combined introduction of inoculates, fertilizers and biochar ? And how this would enhance or damage the natural succession of ectomycorrhizal symbionts of the tree species specific ecosystems of Pinus on the long run ? By the way, are you familiar with pioneer pine forests being an in between stage in the natural (i.e. not man-made) succesion of European tree species specific forest ecosystems, which always end in ecosystems in which only tree species specific ecosystems of deciduous tree species are present ? This research afs-journal articles forest on Pinus pinea and its association with Suillus and Rhizopogon rubescens in Lebanon shows the same or better results of colonization (55 %) of (in this case non-cut) roots by ectomycorrhizae of Rhizopogon as does the "research" of Ogawa, but this time without the introduction of charcoal as a water buffering medium.
3. Why "probably" and "might" if the "researchers" are so sure of the effects attributed to charcoal ? They can not provide scientific evidence for their claims ?
3/5. Are you propagating to cut the roots of trees and/or exposing the root system by removing the top soil and all under shrubs and/or raking out the litter layer to "regenerate" root formation ? What is the effect of this "method" on the natural soil food web of "infertile" dry sandy soils, which are characterized by having the highest biodiversity in spores and mycelia of indigenous mycorrhizal symbionts ? And what about the risk of invasion of the damaged roots by (rhizomorphs of) parasites such as Armillaria species ?
3/10. If there is a "beneficial" effect of the introduction of charcoal, then it can only be its water buffering capacities, which just as well can be attained by replacing them with any kind of other water holding medium, which probably can be done at much lesser costs then paying for biochar, tree saver or other "baked air" products, as the Dutch rightfully call them.
9. Not so harmful as other types of (bark) biochar ?
11. What good will ectomycorrhizal macrofungi do to date palms ?
Conclusion.
Yet another attempt of another nomen nescio with a clear commercially inspired agenda to promote his products and those of his biochar friends without proper understanding the "research" he cites, nor having a clue what natural forest ecology, including the dynamics of the soil food webs of tree species specific ecosystems and the tree life cycle following succession of (ecto)mycorrhizal symbionts are all about.
And I am grateful for this again drawing attention to the utter nonsense your also anonymous "collegue" previously posted on this thread on mycorrhizae by starting a debate on Terra Preta, of which he thought that it was the same as biochar . Who needs enemies when one has such "friends" ?