Cited by 305Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFire effects on ecosystems

The way forward in biochar research: targeting trade‐offs between the potential wins

Open access
Jeffery, Simon, Bezemer, T. Martijn, Cornelissen, Gerard, Kuyper, Thomas W., Lehmann, Johannes, Mommer, Liesje, Sohi, Saran P., van de Voorde, Tess F.J. +2 more·2015·GCB Bioenergy

Abstract

Biochar application to soil is currently widely advocated for a variety of reasons related to sustainability. Typically, soil amelioration with biochar is presented as a multiple‐‘win’ strategy, although it is also associated with potential risks such as environmental contamination. The most often claimed benefits of biochar (i.e. the ‘wins’) include (i) carbon sequestration; (ii) soil fertility enhancement; (iii) biofuel/bioenergy production; (iv) pollutant immobilization; and (v) waste disposal. However, the vast majority of studies ignore possible trade‐offs between them. For example, there is an obvious trade‐off between maximizing biofuel production and maximizing biochar production. Also, relatively little attention has been paid to mechanisms, as opposed to systems impacts, behind observed biochar effects, often leaving open the question as to whether they reflect truly unique properties of biochar as opposed to being simply the short‐term consequences of a fertilization or liming effect. Here, we provide an outline for the future of soil biochar research. We first identify possible trade‐offs between the potential benefits. Second, to be able to better understand and quantify these trade‐offs, we propose guidelines for robust experimental design and selection of appropriate controls that allow both mechanistic and systems assessment of biochar effects and trade‐offs between the wins. Third, we offer a conceptual framework to guide future experiments and suggest guidelines for the standardized reporting of biochar experiments to allow effective between‐site comparisons to quantify trade‐offs. Such a mechanistic and systems framework is required to allow effective comparisons between experiments, across scales and locations, to guide policy and recommendations concerning biochar application to soil.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gcbb.12132

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Conversion of forest residues to biochar in pellet form helps capture carbon from the environment and store it in the soil, thus reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, in addition to increasing soil productivity and enhancing soil carbon.

    “Conversion of forest residues to biochar in the pellet form also helps to capture carbon from the environment and store it in the soil, thus reducing CO 2 in the atmosphere, in addition to increasing soil productivity and enhancing soil carbon [2,10].”

    From Lifecycle Assessment and Techno-Economic Analysis of Biochar Pellet Production from Forest Residues and Field Application (2022) · cites this paper as [10]

    The ‘Climate change mitigation vs. soil fertility’ section says biochar can sequester carbon in soil for extended periods and reports increased soil fertility, though fertility effects are highly variable. It does not establish these benefits specifically for biochar pellets made from forest residues, and it describes climate mitigation as a potential rather than a guaranteed reduction in atmospheric CO₂. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Hospido A, Moreira MT, Martin M, Rigola M, Feijoo G (2005) Environmental evalua- tion of different treatment processes for sludge from urban wastewater treat- ments: anaerobic digestion versus thermal processes. International Journal of Life Cycle Analysis, 5, 336-345.
  2. Liu Y, Yang M, Wu Y, Wang H, Chen Y, Wu W (2011) Reducing CH 4 and CO 2 emis- sions from waterlogged paddy soil with biochar. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 11, 930-939.
  3. Rondon MA, Ramirez JA, Lehmann J (2005) Greenhouse gas emissions decrease with charcoal additions to tropical soils. In: 3rd USDA Symposium on Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry (March 21-24 2005).
  4. Sohi SP, Loez-Capel E, Krull E, Bol R (2009) Biochar's Roles in Soil and Climate Change: A Review of Research Needs. CSIRO, Highett, Victoria, Australia.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jeffery, S., Bezemer, T. M., Cornelissen, G., Kuyper, T. W., Lehmann, J., Mommer, L., Sohi, S. P., van de Voorde, T. F. J., Wardle, D. A., & van Groenigen, J. W.
Affiliations
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • Department of Terrestrial Ecology Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO‐KNAW) PO Box 50 Wageningen 6700 AB The Netherlands
  • Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NO)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Nature Conservation and Plant Ecology group Wageningen University PO Box 47 Wageningen 6700 AA The Netherlands
  • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
  • Department of Soil Quality Wageningen University PO BOX 47 Wageningen 6700 AA The Netherlands
Corresponding author
Jeffery, Simon
Venue
GCB Bioenergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-12-02
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
1-13
ISSN
  • 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-1707
OpenAlex
W2134207910
Cited by
305
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 21
FWCI
35.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • GCB Bioenergy (publishedVersion)
  • KNAW Research Portal (The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences) (publishedVersion)
  • BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • KNAW research portal (Royal Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW)) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Graduate School Production Ecology and Resource Conservation (PE&RC 12043)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Thermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
Keywords
biochar, soil amendment, trade-offs, carbon sequestration, soil fertility, biofuel production, contaminant immobilization, waste disposal, experimental design, standardized reporting, soil contamination

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