Biochar in climate change mitigation

Lehmann, Johannes; Cowie, Annette; Masiello, C. A.; Kammann, Claudia; Woolf, Dominic; Amonette, James E.; Cayuela, María Luz; Arbestain, Marta Camps; Whitman, Thea

doi:10.1038/s41561-021-00852-8

Cited by 438 publications

(197 citation statements)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

192

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The calculation was based on parameters of the standard so‐called rotary kiln type slow pyrolysis system with the highest treatment temperature of 450°C and no reactive or inert gas injection (Fagernäs et al., 2012; Peters et al., 2017). With this selection of pyrolysis parameters, we chose a reasonable compromise between a rather high biochar yield (55% of the initial biomass carbon) and extended biochar mean residence times in soils (>750 years, (Camps‐Arbestain et al., 2015; Lehmann et al., 2015)) which increase as the pyrolysis temperature increases with the H/C org ratio decreasing accordingly (Lehmann et al., 2021). The potential biomass production is, thus, multiplied with a PyCCS conversion efficiency of 47% to calculate the potential NE in each scenario (see S2 for details of distribution of carbon and assumptions on expenditure and leakage).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With this LCN‐PyCCS application, farmers may produce the feedstock for their own biochar application resulting in beneficiary soil properties at the same time as they generate NE, but without applying additional pressure on land use. Additional potential carbon capture and storage (CCS)‐reinforcing returns of investment of biochar use, such as additional soil organic carbon increases (Blanco‐Canqui et al., 2020) or N 2 O or fossil carbon emission reductions by application of biochar production systems (Lehmann et al., 2021; Woolf et al., 2021) were not included in our assessment but serve as conservative guardrails.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this context, we investigate in this study whether carbon sequestration using biochar applications to agricultural soils in a land‐ and calorie‐neutral manner could alleviate such concerns and what fraction of the demand foreseen in decarbonization scenarios could be supplied without the environmental side effect of expanding intensified land use or increasing pressure on food production systems. In such a scheme of land‐as well as calorie‐neutral pyrogenic carbon capture and storage (LCN‐PyCCS), biomass would be grown on land, processed into biochar through pyrolysis, and applied to fields to increase crop yields, as observed in numerous field studies (Joseph et al., 2021; Lehmann et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Potential of Land‐Neutral Negative Emissions Through Biochar Sequestration

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negative emissions (NE) are under discussion as elements of mitigation strategies aiming to achieve the climate targets of the Paris Agreement. However, biomass‐based NE technologies such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) require vast land areas in order to meet the targets projected by climate economic optimization models, thereby competing with food production and ecosystem protection. Here we assess feasible NE contributions of alternative, more sustainable pyrogenic carbon capture and storage (PyCCS) based on land‐neutral biomass production using biochar‐mediated yield increases to maintain calorie production while realizing net CO2 extraction from the atmosphere. Simulations with a biosphere model indicate that such a land‐ and calorie‐neutral PyCCS approach could sequester 0.44–2.62 Gt CO2 yr−1 depending on the assumed biochar‐mediated yield increase achievable on (sub‐)tropical cropland (15%, 20% and 30%, respectively). Cumulatively, by the end of the century, 33–201 Gt CO2 could be sustainably supplied by such an approach, equaling 6%–35% of the NE demand projected for trajectories likely to limit climate warming to 2°C or lower. Furthermore, additional areas dedicated to BECCS in integrated assessment scenarios could instead be used to increase global calorie production (by 2%–16%), or spared for nature protection (up to ∼ 100 Mha). Thus, land‐ and calorie‐neutral PyCCS may, within limits, contribute to lessening the additional land use pressure of biomass‐based NE technologies.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Potential of Land‐Neutral Negative Emissions Through Biochar Sequestration

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Caparas et al, 2021) or excessive fertilizer use (West et al, 2014). Biochar, with its diverse positive effects, can support agronomy by countering many such challenges (Lehmann et al, 2021). Hence, our analysis considers three different narratives for biochar prioritization in Swedish arable land.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A spatial framework for prioritizing biochar application to arable land: a case study for Sweden

Karan¹,

Osslund²,

Azzi³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biochar-agriculture nexus can potentially generate several benefits ranging from soil carbon sequestration to reduction in nutrient leaching from arable soils. However, leveraging these benefits for a particular objective requires spatially-explicit information on suitable locations for biochar application. This study provides a flexible multi-criteria framework that delivers spatial indications on biochar prioritization through a biochar use indication map (BUIM). The framework was exemplified as a case study for Swedish arable land through three different prioritization narratives. The BUIM for all the narratives revealed that a significant fraction of the Swedish arable land could potentially benefit from biochar application. Furthermore, arable land that scored high for a given narrative did not necessarily score high in the others, thus indicating that biochar application schemes can be adjusted to various objectives and local needs. The framework presented here aims to promote the exploration of different avenues for deploying biochar in the agricultural sector.

show abstract

“…Humus (humic acid, fulvic acid, and humin) and some non-humic dissolved organic matter (e.g., organic acids) are the most widely studied organic carbon components to obtain a deep understanding of their crucial roles in different soil reactions (Ondrasek et al 2019;Paul 2016;Polak et al 2019;Wang et al 2020e;Yang et al 2020). Recently, pyrogenic carbon (e.g., biochar) from biomass burning in fields, which is rich in Amazonian dark earth, has garnered increasing attention owing to its high stability for long-term carbon sequestration (Lehmann 2007;Lehmann et al 2021). In addition, the porous structure, rich surface functionality, and condensed graphitic carbon of biochar offer outstanding capacity for the regulation of other soil properties, including the immobilization of pollutants (Gong et al 2022;Wang and Wang 2019;Xu et al 2021c) and fertility (Baki and Abedi-Koupai 2018;Marcińczyk and Oleszczuk 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Redox-induced transformation of potentially toxic elements with organic carbon in soil

Tsang

2022

carbon res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil organic carbon (SOC) is a crucial component that significantly affects the soil fertility, soil remediation, and carbon sequestration. Here, we review the redox-induced transformation of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) through the abiotic impact of SOC. The complex composition of SOC includes humus, pyrogenic carbon (e.g., biochar), dissolved organic matter, and anthropogenic carbon (e.g., compost), with varying concentrations and properties. The primary redox moieties on organic carbon are surface functionalities (e.g., phenol, quinone, and N/S-containing functional groups), environmentally persistent free radicals, and graphitic structures, and their contents are highly variable. Owing to these rich redox moieties, organic carbon can directly affect the reduction and oxidation of PTEs in the soil, such as Cr(VI) reduction and As(III) oxidation. In addition, the interactions between organic carbon and soil redox moieties (i.e., O2, Fe, and Mn minerals) cause the transformation of PTEs. The formation of reactive oxygen species, Fe(II), and Mn(III)/Mn(II) is the main contributor to the redox-induced transformation of PTEs, including Cr(VI) reduction and As(III)/Cr(III)/Tl(I) oxidation. We articulated both the positive and negative effects of organic carbon on the redox-induced transformation of PTEs, which could guide soil remediation efforts. Further scientific studies are necessary to better understand the potential transformations of PTEs by SOC, considering the complicated soil moieties, variable organic carbon composition, and both biotic and abiotic transformations of PTEs in the environment. Graphical Abstract

show abstract

Biochar in climate change mitigation

Cited by 438 publications

References 93 publications

Potential of Land‐Neutral Negative Emissions Through Biochar Sequestration

Potential of Land‐Neutral Negative Emissions Through Biochar Sequestration

A spatial framework for prioritizing biochar application to arable land: a case study for Sweden

Redox-induced transformation of potentially toxic elements with organic carbon in soil

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About