NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | ADVANCE ONLINE PUBLICATION | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 1 D espite two decades of effort to curb emissions of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), emissions grew faster during the 2000s than in the 1990s 1 , and by 2010 had reached ~50 Gt CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 eq) yr −1 (refs 2,3). The continuing rise in emissions is a growing challenge for meeting the international goal of limiting warming to less than 2 °C relative to the pre-industrial era, particularly without stringent climate policies to decrease emissions in the near future 2-4 . As negative emissions technologies (NETs) seem ever more necessary 3,[5][6][7][8][9][10] To have a >50% chance of limiting warming below 2 °C, most recent scenarios from integrated assessment models (IAMs) require large-scale deployment of negative emissions technologies (NETs). These are technologies that result in the net removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. We quantify potential global impacts of the different NETs on various factors (such as land, greenhouse gas emissions, water, albedo, nutrients and energy) to determine the biophysical limits to, and economic costs of, their widespread application. Resource implications vary between technologies and need to be satisfactorily addressed if NETs are to have a significant role in achieving climate goals.options, to be able to decide which pathways are most desirable for dealing with climate change.There are distinct classes of NETs, such as: (1) bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) 11,12 ; (2) direct air capture of CO 2 from ambient air by engineered chemical reactions (DAC) 13,14 ; (3) enhanced weathering of minerals (EW) 15 , where natural weathering to remove CO 2 from the atmosphere is accelerated and the products stored in soils, or buried in land or deep ocean [16][17][18][19] ; (4) afforestation and reforestation (AR) to fix atmospheric carbon in biomass and soils [20][21][22] ; (5) manipulation of carbon uptake by the ocean, either

The amendment of two agricultural soils with two biochars derived from the slow pyrolysis of papermill waste was assessed in a glasshouse study. Characterisation of both biochars revealed high surface area (115 m 2 g −1 ) and zones of calcium mineral agglomeration. The biochars differed slightly in their liming values (33% and 29%), and carbon content (50% and 52%). Molar H/C ratios of 0.3 in the biochars suggested aromatic stability. At application rates of 10 t ha −1 in a ferrosol both biochars significantly increased pH, CEC, exchangeable Ca and total C, while in a calcarosol both biochars increased C while biochar 2 also increased exchangeable K. Biochars reduced Al availability (ca. 2 cmol (+) kg −1 to <0.1 cmol (+) kg −1 ) in the ferrosol. The analysis of biomass production revealed a range of responses, due to both biochar characteristics and soil type. Both biochars significantly increased N uptake in wheat grown in fertiliser amended ferrosol. Concomitant increase in biomass production (250% times that of control) therefore suggested improved fertiliser use efficiency. Likewise, biochar amendment significantly increased biomass in soybean and radish in the ferrosol with fertiliser. The calcarosol amended with fertiliser and biochar however gave varied crop responses: Increased soybean biomass, but reduced wheat and radish biomass. No significant effects of biochar were shown in the absence of fertiliser for wheat and soybean, while radish biomass increased significantly. Earthworms showed preference for biochar-amended ferrosol over control soils with no significant difference recorded for the calcarosol. The results from this work demonstrate that the agronomic benefits of papermill biochars have to be verified for different soil types and crops.

Biochar properties can be significantly influenced by feedstock source and pyrolysis conditions; this warrants detailed characterisation of biochars for their application to improve soil fertility and sequester carbon. We characterised 11 biochars, made from 5 feedstocks [Eucalyptus saligna wood (at 4008C and 5508C both with and without steam activation); E. saligna leaves (at 4008C and 5508C with activation); papermill sludge (at 5508C with activation); poultry litter and cow manure (each at 4008C without activation and at 5508C with activation)] using standard or modified soil chemical procedures. Biochar pH values varied from near neutral to highly alkaline. In general, wood biochars had higher total C, lower ash content, lower total N, P, K, S, Ca, Mg, Al, Na, and Cu contents, and lower potential cation exchange capacity (CEC) and exchangeable cations than the manure-based biochars, and the leaf biochars were generally in-between. Papermill sludge biochar had the highest total and exchangeable Ca, CaCO 3 equivalence, total Cu, and potential CEC, and the lowest total and exchangeable K. Water-soluble salts were higher in the manure-based biochars, followed by leaf, papermill sludge, and wood biochars. Total As, Cd, Pb, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the biochars were either very low or below detection limits. In general, increase in pyrolysis temperature increased the ash content, pH, and surface basicity and decreased surface acidity. The activation treatment had a little effect on most of the biochar properties. X-ray diffraction analysis showed the presence of whewellite in E. saligna biochars produced at 4008C, and the whewellite was converted to calcite in biochars formed at 5508C. Papermill sludge biochar contained the largest amount of calcite. Watersoluble salts and calcite interfered with surface charge measurements and should be removed before the surface charge measurements of biochar. The biochars used in the study ranged from C-rich to nutrient-rich to lime-rich soil amendment, and these properties could be optimised through feedstock formulation and pyrolysis temperature for tailored soil application.

Abstract.Interactions between biochar, soil, microbes, and plant roots may occur within a short period of time after application to the soil. The extent, rates, and implications of these interactions, however, are far from understood. This review describes the properties of biochars and suggests possible reactions that may occur after the addition of biochars to soil. These include dissolution-precipitation, adsorption-desorption, acid-base, and redox reactions. Attention is given to reactions occurring within pores, and to interactions with roots, microorganisms, and soil fauna. Examination of biochars (from chicken litter, greenwaste, and paper mill sludges) weathered for 1 and 2 years in an Australian Ferrosol provides evidence for some of the mechanisms described in this review and offers an insight to reactions at a molecular scale. These interactions are biochar-and site-specific. Therefore, suitable experimental trials-combining biochar types and different pedoclimatic conditions-are needed to determine the extent to which these reactions influence the potential of biochar as a soil amendment and tool for carbon sequestration.

No abstract