The DOI matches its Crossref record; 122 of the 124 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Biochar, hydrochar and uncarbonized feedstock application to permanent grassland—Effects on greenhouse gas emissions and plant growth
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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.”
From Hydrochar: A Review on Its Production Technologies and Applications (2021) · cites this paper as [86]
In the citing paper
“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].”
From Hydrochar: A Review on Its Production Technologies and Applications (2021) · cites this paper as [86]
Citations
Cites
World Reference Base for Soil Resources
Driessen, P., Nachtergaele, F., Spaargaren, O. C., & Deckers, J. (2005) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/noe0849338304.ch410 · Cited by 7,248
Nitrous Oxide (N 2 O): The Dominant Ozone-Depleting Substance Emitted in the 21st Century
Ravishankara, A. R., Daniel, J. S., & Portmann, R. W. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1176985 · Cited by 4,769
BARNETT, V. D., Lewis, T., & Abeles, F. F. (1979) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.2995737 · Cited by 2,834
Lehmann, J. (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/447143a · Cited by 2,477
Jeffery, S., Verheijen, F. G. A., van der Velde, M., & Bastos, A. C. (2011) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.08.015 · Cited by 2,422
EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts
Bell, A., Main, I. G., Atkinson, M., Vicente, R. F., Meredith, P. G., & Boon, S. A. (2013) · Cited by 2,408
Agronomic values of greenwaste biochar as a soil amendment
Chan, K. Y., Van Zwieten, L., Meszaros, I., Downie, A., & Joseph, S. (2007) · Soil Research · doi:10.1071/sr07109 · Cited by 1,902
Libra, J. A., Ro, K. S., Kammann, C., Funke, A., Berge, N. D., Neubauer, Y., Titirici, M.-M., Fühner, C., Bens, O., Kern, J., et al. (2011) · Biofuels · doi:10.4155/bfs.10.81 · Cited by 1,756
Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: A meta-analysis
Biederman, L. A., & Harpole, W. S. (2013) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12037 · Cited by 1,737
World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2006
Ausgabe, D. (2007) · Cited by 1,699
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Jäger, 2003, The University of Giessen free-air carbon dioxide enrichment study: description of the experimental site and of a new enrichment system, J. Appl. Bot., 77, 117
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kambo, H. S., & Dutta, A. (2015) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.050 · Cited by 1,746
Wang, T., Zhai, Y., Zhu, Y., Li, C., & Zeng, G. (2018) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.071 · Cited by 1,365
Agegnehu, G., Bass, A. M., Nelson, P. N., & Bird, M. I. (2016) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.054 · Cited by 909
Minireview of potential applications of hydrochar derived from hydrothermal carbonization of biomass
Fang, J., Zhan, L., Ok, Y. S., & Gao, B. (2017) · Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.jiec.2017.08.026 · Cited by 633
Hydrochar: A Review on Its Production Technologies and Applications
Masoumi, S., Borugadda, V. B., Nanda, S., & Dalai, A. K. (2021) · Catalysts · doi:10.3390/catal11080939 · Cited by 363
“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].”
BackgroundMethod
Metadata
- 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
