Cited by 174Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsBioenergy crop production and managementAgricultural Science and Fertilization

Biochar, hydrochar and uncarbonized feedstock application to permanent grassland—Effects on greenhouse gas emissions and plant growth

Schimmelpfennig, Sonja, Müller, Christoph, Grünhage, Ludger, Koch, Christian, Kammann, Claudia·2014·Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment

Abstract

Both reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration have the potential to reduce global climate warming and avoid dangerous climate change. We assessed the sequestration potential as well as possible risks and benefits of carbon amendments (16±4% of soil organic C) from Miscanthus×giganteus in different carbonization stages of a temperate grassland soil together with pig slurry: (1) untreated dried biomass (feedstock), (2) hydrothermally carbonized biomass (hydrochar) and (3) pyrolyzed biomass (biochar) in comparison to a control (only pig slurry application).The field study was complemented by a laboratory incubation study, followed by a growth experiment with Lolium perenne. In the field, greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, N2O, and CH4) were monitored weekly over 1.5 years and over three months in the lab. Initial nitrogen losses via ammonia emissions after substrate–slurry application were assessed in an additional greenhouse study.We found that biochar reduced soil and ecosystem respiration in incubation and in the field, respectively. Additionally, biochar improved methane oxidation, though restricted by emissions outbursts due to slurry amendment. It also reduced N2O emissions significantly in the lab study but not in the field. Hydrochar and feedstock proved to be easily degradable in incubation, but had no effect on ecosystem respiration in the field. Feedstock amendment significantly increased N2O emissions in incubation and one year after application likewise in the field. In a growth experiment subsequent to the incubation, only biochar amendment increased L. perenne biomass (+29%) significantly, likely due to N retention. In the field, biochar caused a significant shift in the plant species composition from grasses to forbs, whereas hydrochar significantly reduced yields within two growth periods (2011 and 2012). Ammonia emissions were significantly higher with feedstock and biochar compared to the control or acidic hydrochar. The overall results indicate that biochar is better suited for C sequestration and GHG mitigation in grasslands than hydrochar or the uncarbonized feedstock. However, NH3 emission reductions may only occur when the biochar is neutral or slightly acidic.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.agee.2014.03.027

Cites

122 of 122 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Schimmelpfennig et al. (2014) reported that during a laboratory incubation study with Lolium perenne using 16% hydrochar derived from silver grass, hydrochar was degraded but did not show a significant impact on ecosystem respiration during field experiments.

    “Schimmelpfennig et al. (2014) reported on a growth experiment via a laboratory incubation study with Lolium perenne using 16% hydrochar derived from silver grass as a feedstock [86].During incubation, hydrochar was found to be degraded but did not show a significant impact on the ecosystem's respiration during the field experiments.”
  • Kammann et al. (2012) and Schimmelpfennig et al. (2014) noticed identical outcomes, i.e., emission of CO2 and CH4 during their carbon sequestration study using hydrochars derived from ryegrass and peanut hulls and Miscanthus giganteus as feedstocks.

    “Kammann et al. (2012) and Schimmelpfennig et al. (2014) noticed identical outcomes, i.e., the emission of CO 2 and CH 4 during their carbon sequestration study using hydrochars derived from ryegrass and peanut hulls and Miscanthus giganteus as feedstocks [86,115].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 124 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schimmelpfennig, S., Müller, C., Grünhage, L., Koch, C., & Kammann, C.
Affiliations
  • Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (DE)
  • University College Dublin (IE)
  • Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen (DE)
Corresponding author
Schimmelpfennig, Sonja
Venue
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-06
Volume
191
Pages
39-52
ISSN
0167-8809 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2044125096
Cited by
174
References
124
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 4
FWCI
24.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment (publishedVersion)
  • OpenAgrar (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Agricultural Science and Fertilization
Keywords
biochar, hydrochar, Miscanthus × giganteus, pig slurry, greenhouse gas emissions, carbon sequestration, nitrous oxide emissions, methane oxidation, ammonia emissions, ecosystem respiration, perennial ryegrass, plant growth, floristic composition, nitrogen retention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review