Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 140 (2011) 309–313

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agee

Short communication

Biochar addition to agricultural soil increased CH4 uptake and water holding
capacity – Results from a short-term pilot field study
Kristiina Karhu a,∗ , Tuomas Mattila b , Irina Bergström a , Kristiina Regina c
a
Finnish Environment Institute, Natural Environment Centre, P.O. BOX 140, FI-00251 Helsinki, Finland
b
Finnish Environment Institute, Centre for Sustainable Consumption and Production, P.O. BOX 140, FI-00251 Helsinki, Finland
c
Agrifood Research Finland, Plant Production Research, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Biochar addition to agricultural soil has been suggested to mitigate climate change through increased
Received 11 June 2010 biogenic carbon storage and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. We measured the fluxes of N2 O,
Received in revised form CO2 , and CH4 after adding 9 t ha−1 biochar on an agricultural soil in Southern Finland in May 2009. We
30 November 2010
conducted these measurements twice a week for 1.5 months, between sowing and canopy closure, to
Accepted 3 December 2010
capture the period of highest N2 O emissions, where the potential for mitigation would also be highest.
Available online 13 January 2011
Biochar addition increased CH4 uptake (96% increase in the average cumulative CH4 uptake), but no
statistically significant differences were observed in the CO2 and N2 O emissions between the biochar
Keywords:
Biochar
amended and control plots. Added biochar increased soil water holding capacity by 11%. Further studies
Black carbon are needed to clarify whether this may help balance fluctuations in water availability to plants in the
Greenhouse gas emissions future climate with more frequent drought periods.
Climate change mitigation © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Biochar is produced when wood or other organic materials are
heated under limited oxygen (O2 ) supply. Biochar production from
waste biomass does not cause notable life cycle based greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions (Roberts et al., 2010). Addition of biochar
to agricultural soils has been proposed as means to improve soil
fertility, and mitigate climate change (Lehmann, 2007) through
increased soil carbon storage (Lehmann et al., 2006; Fowles, 2007)
and decreased nitrous oxide (N2 O) and methane (CH4 ) emissions
from soils (Rondon et al., 2005). The reasons for the observed
changes in GHG emissions in laboratory studies are presently not
clear and there are contradictory results depending on soil water
content (Yanai et al., 2007), soil type and type of biochar used (e.g.
Spokas and Reicosky, 2009). Field studies are scarce and mainly
performed in the tropics. To our knowledge there are no published
field studies on the effect of biochar addition to GHG emissions
from agricultural soils in the boreal zone.
The increase in volumes of stockless organic farming poses a
challenge for the management of nitrogen (N) cycling during the
legume-based crop rotation. In organic farming, the N source is typ-
∗ Corresponding author. Current address: Geography, College of Life and Environ-
mental Sciences, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter, EX4 4RJ,
Great Britain, United Kingdom. Tel.: +358 50 530 3670.
E-mail addresses: K.Karhu@exeter.ac.uk, kristiina.karhu@helsinki.fi (K. Karhu).
ically a legume (a grass-clover ley) that is grown for two seasons
and then ploughed into the soil, providing N for the following crops.
Compared to conventional farming, N in the green manure is min-
eralized more slowly, is less easily available to plants, and may be
more susceptible to leaching and gaseous losses (Torstensson et al.,
2006). Within an organic rotation, establishment of the first arable
crop after grass–clover is an important loss point for N2 O (Ball et al.,
2007). The most critical time for mitigating N2 O emissions is the
period after ploughing the green manure, before the sown cereal
crop reaches an active growth phase and can efficiently compete
for available N with microbes (Ball et al., 2007). We hypothesized
that biochar addition to soil could decrease N2 O emissions between
ploughing in the green manure and crop canopy closure. Biochar
has been shown to efficiently retain ammonium (NH4 + ) via cation
exchange (Liang et al., 2006) and fresh biochar could also retain
anions such as nitrate (NO3 − ) (Cheng et al., 2008). If this retained N
would then be slowly released for plant growth, biochar application
to soil could increase the synchrony in the mineral N availability
and plant uptake. This could increase crop yield and reduce the
amount of N available for denitrification and lost as N2 O.
We hypothesized that biochar addition would also reduce CO2
and CH4 emissions. Emissions of CO2 could be reduced due to
adsorption of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) on biochar surfaces
(Thies and Rillig, 2009) or due to biochar promoting formation of
soil aggregates, inside of which soil organic matter (SOM) can be
protected from decomposition (Liang et al., 2010). On the other
hand, biochar addition has also been observed to increase micro-

0167-8809/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2010.12.005
310 K. Karhu et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 140 (2011) 309–313

Table 1
Soil properties.

Soil properties Soil type C (%) N (%) pH Bulk density (g cm−3 ) Porosity (%) WHC (g H2 O g dry soil−1 )

Control soila
Silt loam 1.81 0.08 6.90 1.30 50.9 0.485 ± 0.014
Biochar amended soil Silt loam n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.25 52.8 0.540 ± 0.019

WHC (n = 4) and bulk density were determined from unsieved soil samples at the end of the experiment, total porosity was calculated from bulk densities assuming a
2.65 g cm−3 particle density for soil minerals.
a
C%, N% and pH are initial values of the soil before starting the experiment.

bial activity and thus enhance decomposition of native soil organic
matter in a forest soil (Wardle et al., 2008). Increased soil aeration
due to increased porosity could decrease CH4 production and/or
increase CH4 oxidation in soil (Van Zwieten et al., 2009). We also
hypothesized that biochar addition would increase soil water hold-
ing capacity (WHC), since organic amendments generally increase
WHC and biochar has a high capacity to retain water due to high
amount of small pores (Major et al., 2009). If this enhanced WHC
increased water availability to plants it could also have beneficial
effect on crop yields.
2. Materials and methods
We studied the effect of biochar addition on GHG emissions in an
organically managed 5-year (clover–clover–wheat–bean–oat) crop
rotation in Southern Finland (67◦ 08 N, 24◦ 97 E). Yearly precipita-
tion at the site was 536 mm, and mean annual temperature 4.8 ◦ C
in 2009. The biochar amendments were made on a field in active
cultivation, as part of the normal farming practice. We focused our
measurements on the period between ploughing the green manure
and crop canopy closure, because during this period of high N2 O
emissions, the potential for mitigating N2 O emission with biochar
addition would be the highest.
Average daily precipitation (mm) and air temperatures (◦ C)
for the study period were available from the closest precipitation
and automated weather stations, located 7 and 17 km from the
study site, respectively (data from Finnish Meteorological Institute,
Helsinki, Finland). The monthly mean temperature in the region
was somewhat higher in May 2009 compared with long term aver-
age of the years 2002–2008, but typical for the region in June. The
precipitation was much lower in May 2009 but typical for the region
in June, compared with monthly averages in 2003–2008.
We added a total of 9 t ha−1 of biochar (Charcoal Finland Ltd.,
Alavieska, Finland) on an 100 m2 area, divided into four 25 m2
experimental plots on 16th May 2009, when ploughing in the
grass–clover mixture. The biochar used (<10 mm sized fraction)
was a by-product of birch charcoal production (pyrolysis in 400 ◦ C
for 2–2.5 h, C%: 77.83, N%: 0.77, BET surface area: 3.6 m2 g−1 ). For
increased mixing to the soil, we first added 5 t ha−1 biochar prior to
ploughing (20 cm) and then mixed 4 t ha−1 biochar to the surface
soil (top 6 cm) with a cultivator. Four control plots of similar size,
soil type (well-drained soil, silt loam, Table 1) and topography were
established next to the biochar amended plots. After sowing wheat
on the field we installed one steel frame (60 cm × 60 cm) per plot
for gas collection chambers (n = 4).
Fluxes of N2 O, CH4 and CO2 were measured in 2009 twice a week
between 19th May and 28th June (9 measurements in all), with a
static chamber method with an opaque aluminum chamber (cham-
ber height 40 cm), closed with water seal. A 20 ml gas sample was
taken at time 0 and 45 min after chamber closure. Samples were
transferred to evacuated 12 ml vials (Exetainer® , Labco Ltd.) and
the GHG concentrations were analyzed with gas chromatography
(Hewlett Packard 6890). Flux rates were calculated with the lin-
ear regression method. More details in sampling, gas analysis and
calculation of the flux rates can be found in Regina et al. (2004).
Simultaneously with gas measurements, we also measured air
and soil temperature (at 5 cm depth) and determined gravimetric
soil water content as % of dry weight (% DW, drying at 105 ◦ C for
1.5 h) from composite samples from each plot (samples taken with
a small soil corer from 0 to 5 cm depth). Soil water holding capac-
ity (WHC) was determined from composite samples from each plot
(2 analytical replicates) at the end of the study period with the
method of Priha and Smolander (1999). Bulk density was deter-
mined at the end of the experiment from one pooled sample from
biochar amended area and one pooled sample from the control area
(Table 1). We also determined the grain yield from the experimental
plots at crop harvest.
General linear model – Univariate procedure in SPSS statistics
(SPSS for Windows, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA; release 17.0.0, 2008),
was used for analyzing whether there were differences in the GHG
fluxes, soil temperatures and soil water contents between biochar
amended and control areas. Both treatments (biochar vs. control)
and time (measurements 1–9) were used as fixed factors in the
model. Differences in the WHC and grain yield were studied with a
t-test. An increase in WHC was expected following biochar addition
(Dugan et al., 2010), so a 1-sided test was used. Pearson corre-
lation coefficients between GHG fluxes of each chamber and soil
temperature and soil moisture were calculated. The Q10 value for
CO2 flux was calculated by fitting the equation R = R0 ebT , where
R = respiration rate, R0 = respiration rate at 0 ◦ C, T = temperature in
Celsius, b = the temperature dependence coefficient, Q10 = e(10b) , to
all measurements with SPSS linear regression.
3. Results
N2 O emissions increased at first, when N from the green
manure started to mineralize, but decreased later. CO2 fluxes gen-
erally increased during the measuring period, and had a positive
correlation with temperature (Table 2). There were no statisti-
cally significant differences in N2 O (p = 0.484) or CO2 (p = 0.376)
fluxes (Fig. 1a and b) between biochar and control soils. Both
biochar and control soils were CH4 sinks for most of the time.
Biochar amendment increased CH4 uptake statistically significantly
Table 2
Pearson correlation coefficients between carbon dioxide (CO2 ; kg ha−1 day−1 ),
nitrous oxide (N2 O; g ha−1 day−1 ), and methane (CH4 ; g ha−1 day−1 ) fluxes and soil
water content (% of DW) and soil (at 5 cm depth) temperature (◦ C) in the biochar and
control treatments. All measurements from the measurement period are included
(n = 30–33 in both treatments).
Variable Soil water content (%DW) Soil T (◦ C)
CO2 fluxa
Control −0.137 0.610**
Biochar −0.595** 0.598**
N2 O flux
Control 0.238 0.028
Biochar 0.061 0.034
CH4 flux
Control 0.419* −0.305
Biochar 0.165 0.008
a
CO2 flux was log transformed, DW: dry weight.
*
p < 0.05 (two-tailed).
**
p < 0.01 (two-tailed).
 K. Karhu et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 140 (2011) 309–313 311

a 40 a 20 35
N2O flux (g N2O-N ha-1day-1) Control
35 18

soil water content (%DW)

30
Biochar 16
30

Precipitation (mm)
14 25
25 12 20
20 10
8 15
15 Control
6 10
10 Biochar
4
5 Precipitation 5
2
0 0 0
135 145 155 165 175 185 135 145 155 165 175 185
Time (DOY) Time (DOY)
b 140 b 30
CO2flux (kg CO2-C ha-1day-1)

Control
120 25
Biochar
100 20

T (°C)
80 15
60
10
Tsoil_Control
40 Tsoil_Biochar
5
Tair
20
0
0 135 145 155 165 175 185
135 145 155 165 175 185 Time (DOY)
Time (DOY)
Fig. 2. (a) Gravimetric soil moisture content (at 0–5 cm depth) and mean precip-
c 2
itation (daily averages), (b) air and soil (at 5 cm depth) temperature at every gas
Control
1 sampling time during the measurement period (time of day when measurements
CH4flux (g CH4-C ha-1day-1)

Biochar were taken varied between 7:30 and 19:00). Symbols and error bars represent the
0 mean ± S.E. (n = 4).

-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
135 145 155 165 175
Time (DOY)
Fig. 1. (a) N2 O, (b) CO2 (total ecosystem respiration) and (c) CH4 fluxes measured
from the biochar amended (filled square) and control (open circle) plots. Symbols
and error bars represent the mean ± S.E. (n = 4). Negative flux indicates CH4 uptake
by soil. Major rain events before or during gas measurements are marked to (c) with
arrows (DOY (day of the year) 142, 4 mm; DOY 153, 12.2 mm; DOY 154, 21 mm).
(p = 0.044) (Fig. 1c). When calculated as a cumulative flux over the
whole measurement period the average increase in CH4 uptake
in biochar treatment compared to control was 96% (from uptake
of 49.6 to 97.4 g CH4 -C ha−1 ). Soil WHC was higher in the biochar
amended area compared to control (p = 0.028), i.e. biochar amend-
ment increased soil WHC by 11% (Table 1). Biochar addition did
not affect the yield, number or weight of seed (grain yields in plots
were 322–432 g m−2 for the biochar plots and 320–444 g m−2 for
the controls). Total biomass was not measured.
There were no statistically significant differences in soil water
content (Fig. 2a, p = 0.334) or soil temperature (Fig. 2b, p = 0.838)
between biochar and control plots (for air temperature during the
measurement period, see Fig. 2b). Heavy rain events increased soil
water content similarly in both treatments (Fig. 2a), but CH4 flux
responded differently to changes in soil moisture in the control and
biochar soils. With rather similar soil water content, average CH4
uptake was always higher in the biochar amended plots (Fig. 1c).
Net CH4 flux was positively correlated with soil water content in
the control treatment (Table 2), indicating that when soil was wet-
ter there was a higher flux from soil to the atmosphere (or a lower
flux from atmosphere into the soil). In the biochar treatment, how-
ever, there was no statistically significant correlation between CH4
flux and soil water content (Table 2). For example, when soil water
content slightly increased after rain from measurement 1 to 2, there
185 was CH4 outflow from soil in the control, but not in the biochar
plots (Fig. 1c). After measurement 2 when soil became dryer, CH4
uptake into the soil increased both in control and biochar plots,
but in the biochar treatment the CH4 flux again responded less and
more slowly (measurements 3 and 4). When soil water content
increased again after heavy rain episodes (Figs. 1c and 2b), the CH4
uptake in control plots started to decrease already at measurement
5 and was close to zero at measurement 6. On the contrary, the
CH4 uptake of the biochar plots increased on measurement 5, and
decreased somewhat only at measurement 6. Altogether the vari-
ation in soil water content had smaller effect on the CH4 flux of the
biochar plots than of the control plots (Fig. 1c).
The CO2 flux correlated positively with temperature in both
treatments (Table 2). The temperature sensitivity of the CO2
flux (expressed as Q10 , the proportional increase in respiration
when temperature increases by 10 ◦ C) did not differ between the
treatments; Q10 control = 1.7 (±0.5, confidence interval (CFL) 95%),
Q10 biochar = 2.1 (±0.9, CFL 95%). There was a negative correlation
between CO2 flux and soil water content in the biochar treatment
(Table 2), but this was due to the negative correlation between soil
temperature and water content during the measurement period:
when calculating partial correlations and controlling for soil tem-
perature, soil water content did not have a statistically significant
independent effect on the CO2 flux. N2 O flux was not correlated
with soil temperature or water content in either of the treatments
(Table 2).
312 K. Karhu et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 140 (2011) 309–313
4. Discussion
In our study, increased CH4 uptake was a benefit available
immediately after fresh biochar application to soil. Also other
authors have observed an increase in CH4 uptake in soil amended
with biochar (Rondon et al., 2005, 2006). If prevailed long-term,
the increased CH4 uptake gives support to the use of biochar addi-
tions as means of reducing GHG emissions from agricultural soils
(Rondon et al., 2006).
The net CH4 flux from soil is a sum of CH4 production and
CH4 oxidation (Topp and Pattey, 1997). Negative flux (CH4 uptake)
means that CH4 oxidation exceeds CH4 production in the soil and
the soil functions as a methane sink. The reasons for the increased
CH4 uptake in response to biochar addition are not clear. It has been
suggested that biochar improves soil aeration, and thus decreases
anoxic conditions in soils, which could decrease CH4 production
and/or increase CH4 oxidation (Van Zwieten et al., 2009). CH4 oxi-
dation is determined by diffusivity and methanotroph activity (von
Fischer et al., 2009). Therefore, a possible explanation for increased
CH4 uptake in the biochar amended area of our study was improved
soil aeration and increased CH4 diffusion to soil. However, based on
the measurements it is impossible to say, whether decrease in CH4
production or increase in CH4 oxidation or both caused the change.
Biochar has high total porosity, and it can both retain water in
small pores and thus increase WHC and let the water flow through
the larger pores after heavy rain from topsoil to deeper soil lay-
ers (Asai et al., 2009). Biochar may stabilize fluctuations in the
CH4 flux due to changes in water content. The positive correla-
tion found between CH4 flux and water content in control plots,
but not in biochar treatment would support this idea. It is possible
that biochar addition increased total porosity, WHC and air-filled
pore space at the same time. Wood-derived slow-pyrolysis biochars
have a high proportion of macropores (Downie et al., 2009), which
are usually air filled under field conditions and are important in
maintaining aerobic conditions in soil (Van Zwieten et al., 2009).
Therefore, it is reasonable that anaerobic conditions are reached at
a higher water content in the biochar amended soil compared to
control soil.
The observed N2 O emissions were at a lower end of the
20–100 g N ha−1 day−1 range measured for a similar farming sys-
tem in the UK (Ball et al., 2007). The emission increased with
time, when N from the green manure started to mineralize, and
decreased again in the end of the measurement period, probably
because plants started to take up more N. Hypothesized decreases
in N2 O and CO2 fluxes in response to biochar addition, found by
other authors (e.g. Rondon et al., 2005, 2006; Yanai et al., 2007;
Spokas et al., 2009; Spokas and Reicosky, 2009) were not observed.
Less anoxic conditions should have also in theory decreased N2 O
emissions through decreased denitrification activity, but for some
reason these emissions were less responsive to biochar treatment
than the CH4 flux. Since N2 O is produced both in aerobic and
anaerobic processes the picture is more complicated. Also, the N2 O
reductase enzyme, which catalyses the reduction of N2 O to N2 in
anaerobic conditions is more sensitive to O2 than the enzymes
involved in the production of N2 O during denitrification (Tiedje,
1988). Thus, increased aeration due to biochar application could
suppress the reduction of N2 O to N2 (Van Zwieten et al., 2009).
Also, according to Sohi et al. (2009) there might be an observable
difference in N2 O emissions only after rewetting a soil (e.g. Yanai
et al., 2007), but not in a soil that has been evenly moist for a longer
time.
The effects on CO2 and or N2 O emissions may need a longer
time to develop or become apparent only at higher biochar appli-
cation rates. It is problematic that some laboratory studies (e.g.
Yanai et al., 2007; Spokas et al., 2009) have used such high applica-
tion rates (150 and 240 t ha−1 , respectively) that are not applicable
in the field. However, Rondon et al. (2005, 2006) have observed
a statistically significant reduction in N2 O production already at
moderate 20 t ha−1 application rates, which may be due to the ben-
efits of biochar additions being clearer in tropical soils. Another
explanation for contradictory results between experiments could
be differing biochar properties, caused by different biomass raw
material and pyrolysis temperatures. Surface area of our biochar
(3.6 m2 g−1 ) was, however, in the same range as Spokas and
Reicosky’s (2009) woody biochars, which decreased N2 O emissions
in their laboratory experiments. Also other unmeasured differences
in properties (such as the concentrations of oils and waxes) may
influence soil processes. Further research is needed to standardize
biochar treatments and to quantify essential biochar properties.
5. Conclusions
Though small-scale and short-term, our pilot study indicates
that fresh biochar mitigates CH4 emissions already immediately
after its addition to soil. Our results support other studies that have
found biochar application to increase CH4 uptake, probably due to
better soil aeration. Our results imply that in the studied medium-
textured boreal agricultural soil, the beneficial effects of biochar
addition might first come through effects on soil physical prop-
erties and hydrology, rather than through effects on the nitrogen
cycle, at least with low amounts of added biochar and this type of
biochar used. We showed that biochar addition increases soil WHC.
Further studies are needed to clarify, whether increased WHC due
to biochar addition will also lead to enhanced plant available water
content in different soil types (and could thus be used to mitigate
fluctuating water availability in a changing climate), and whether
there are any effects on N2 O or CO2 fluxes in the longer term.
Acknowledgements
We thank Charcoal Finland Ltd. for supplying the biochar, Esben
Bruun for biochar surface area analyses and Iain Hartley for com-
ments on the manuscript.
References
Asai, H., Samson, B.K., Stephan, H.M., Songyikhangsuthor, K., Homma, K., Kiyono, Y.,
Inoue, Y., Shiraiwa, T., Horie, T., 2009. Biochar amendment techniques for upland
rice production in Northern Laos 1. Soil physical properties, leaf SPAD and grain
yield. Field Crop Res. 111, 81–84.
Ball, B.C., Watson, C.A., Crichton, I., 2007. Nitrous oxide emissions, cereal growth,
N recovery and soil nitrogen status after ploughing organically managed
grass/clover swards. Soil Use Manage. 23, 145–155.
Cheng, C.-H., Lehmann, J., Engelhard, M.H., 2008. Natural oxidation of black carbon
in soils: changes in molecular form and surface charge along a climosequence.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 72, 1598–1610.
Downie, A., Crosky, A., Munroe, P., 2009. Physical properties of biochar. In: Lehmann,
J., Joseph, S. (Eds.), Biochar for Environmental Management – Science and Tech-
nology. Earthscan, London, pp. 227–249.
Dugan, E., Verhoef, A., Robinson, S., Sohi, S., 2010. Bio-char from sawdust, maize
stover and charcoal: Impact on water holding capacities (WHC) of three soils
from Ghana. In: 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Chang-
ing World 11 , Brisbane, Australia, August 1–6, 2010 (Published on DVD).
Fowles, M., 2007. Black carbon sequestration as an alternative to bioenergy. Biomass
Bioenergy 31, 426–432.
Lehmann, J., Gaunt, J., Rondon, M., 2006. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosys-
tems – a review. Mitigat. Adaptat. Strategies Global Change 11, 403–427.
Lehmann, J., 2007. Bioenergy in the black. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 381–387.
Liang, B., Lehmann, J., Solomon, D., Grossman, J., O’Neill, B., Skjemstad, J.O., Thies, J.,
Luizão, F.J., Petersen, J., Neves, E.G., 2006. Black carbon increases cation exchance
capacity in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 1719–1730.
Liang, B., Lehmann, J., Sohi, S.P., Theis, J.E., O’Neill, B., Trujillo, L., Gaunt, J., Solomon,
D., Grossman, J., Neves, E.G., Luizão, F.J., 2010. Black carbon affects the cycling
of nonblackcarbon in soil. Org. Geochem. 41, 206–213.
Major, J., Steiner, C., Downie, A., Lehmann, J., 2009. Biochar effects on nutrient leach-
ing. In: Lehmann, J., Joseph, S. (Eds.), Biochar for Environmental Management –
Science and Technology. Earthscan, London, pp. 227–249.
Priha, O., Smolander, A., 1999. Nitrogen transformations in soil under Pinus
sylvestris, Picea abies and Betula pendula at two forest sites. Soil Biol. Biochem.
31, 965–977.
 K. Karhu et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 140 (2011) 309–313
Regina, K., Syväsalo, E., Hannukkala, A., Esala, M., 2004. Fluxes of N2 O from farmed
peat soils in Finland. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 55, 591–599.
Roberts, K., Gloy, B.A., Joseph, S., Scott, N.R., Lehmann, J., 2010. Life cycle assessment
of biochar systems: estimating the energetic, economic, and climate change
potential. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 827–833.
Rondon, M., Ramirez, J.A., Lehmann, J., 2005. Charcoal additions reduce net emis-
sions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. In: Proceedings of the 3rd USDA
Symposium on Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration , Baltimore, USA,
March 21–24, 2005, p. 208.
Rondon, M.A., Molina, D., Hurtado, M., Ramirez, J., Lehmann, J., Major, J., Amezquita,
E., 2006. Enhancing the productivity of crops and grasses while reducing green-
house gas emissions through bio-char amendments to unfertile tropical soils.
In: Presentation at the 18th World Congress of Soil Science , Philadelphia, PA,
July 9–15, 2006, Presentation #138-68.
Sohi, S., Lopez-Capel, E., Krull, E., Bol, R., 2009. Biochar, climate change and soil: a
review to guide future research. CSIRO Land and Water Science Report 05/09,
February 2009, p. 56.
Spokas, K.A., Koskinen, W.C., Baker, J.M., Reicosky, D.C., 2009. Impacts of woodchip
biochar additions on greenhouse gas production and sorption/degradation of
two herbicides in a Minnesota soil. Chemosphere 77, 574–581.
Spokas, K.A., Reicosky, D.C., 2009. Impacts of sixteen different biochars on soil green-
house gas production. Ann. Environ. Sci. 3, 179–193.
Thies, J.E., Rillig, M.C., 2009. Characteristics of biochar: biochar prop-
erties. In: Lehmann, J., Joseph, S. (Eds.), Biochar for Environmental
313
Management – Science and Technology. Earthscan, London, pp.
85–105.
Tiedje, J.M., 1988. Ecology of denitrification and dissimilatory nitrate reduction
to ammonium. In: Zehnder, A.J.B. (Ed.), Biology of Anaerobic Microorganisms.
Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 179–244.
Torstensson, G., Aronsson, H., Bergström, L., 2006. Nutrient use efficiencies and
leaching of organic and conventional cropping systems in Sweden. Agron. J. 98,
603–615.
Topp, E., Pattey, E., 1997. Soils as sources and sinks as atmospheric methane. Can. J.
Soil Sci. 77, 167–178.
Van Zwieten, L., Singh, B., Joseph, S., Kimber, S., Cowie, A., Chan, K.Y., 2009. Biochar
and emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases from soil. In: Lehmann, J., Joseph,
S. (Eds.), Biochar for Environmental Management – Science and Technology.
Earthscan, London, pp. 227–249.
von Fischer, J.C., Butters, G., Duchateau, P.C., Thelwell, R.J., Siller, R., 2009.
In situ measurements of methanotroph activity in upland soils: a reaction-
diffusion model and field observation of water stress. J. Geophys. Res. 114,
G01015.
Wardle, D.A., Nilsson, M.-C., Zackrisson, O., 2008. Fire-derived charcoal causes loss
of forest humus. Science 320, 629.
Yanai, Y., Toyota, K., Okazaki, M., 2007. Effects of charcoal addition on N2 O emis-
sions from soil resulting from rewetting air-dried soil in short-term laboratory
experiments. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 53, 181–188.