Biochar Application to Soils

A Critical Scientific Review

of Effects on Soil Properties, Processes and Functions

F. Verheijen, S. Jeffery, A.C. Bastos, M. van der Velde, I. Diafas

EUR 24099 EN - 2010

The mission of the JRC-IES is to provide scientific-technical support to
the European Union’s policies for the protection and sustainable
development of the European and global environment.

European Commission,
Joint Research Centre
Institute for Environment and Sustainability

Contact information
Address: Dr. Frank Verheijen, European Commission, Joint Research
Centre, Land Management and Natural Hazards Unit, TP 280, via E.
Fermi 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA) Italy
E-mail: frank.verheijen@jrc.ec.europa.eu
Tel.: +39-0332-785535
Fax: +39-0332-786394

http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

Legal Notice
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of
the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this
publication.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or
these calls may be billed.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is

available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu/

JRC 55799

EUR 24099 - EN
ISBN 978-92-79-14293-2
ISSN 1018-5593
DOI 10.2788/472

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities

© European Communities, 2010

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged

Title page artwork: Charcoal drawing by Marshall Short

Printed in Italy
 Biochar Application to Soils
A Critical Scientific Review
of Effects on Soil Properties, Processes and Functions

F. Verheijen1, S. Jeffery1, A.C. Bastos2, M. van der Velde1, I. Diafas1

1
Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Joint Research Centre (Ispra)
2
Cranfield University (UK)
*
Corresponding author: frank.verheijen@jrc.ec.europa.eu
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The preparation of this report was an institutional initiative. We have received
good support from Luca Montanarella, our soil colleagues in DG ENV
provided helpful reviews and comments along the way, and two external
experts reviewed the document in detail, thereby improving the quality of the
final version.

This volume should be referenced as: Verheijen, F.G.A., Jeffery, S., Bastos,
A.C., van der Velde, M., and Diafas, I. (2009). Biochar Application to Soils - A
Critical Scientific Review of Effects on Soil Properties, Processes and
Functions. EUR 24099 EN, Office for the Official Publications of the European
Communities, Luxembourg, 149pp.

4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Biochar application to soils is being considered as a means to sequester
carbon (C) while concurrently improving soil functions. The main focus of this
report is providing a critical scientific review of the current state of knowledge
regarding the effects of biochar application to soils on soil properties,
processes and functions. Wider issues, including atmospheric emissions and
occupational health and safety associated to biochar production and handling,
are put into context. The aim of this review is to provide a sound scientific
basis for policy development, to identify gaps in current knowledge, and to
recommend further research relating to biochar application to soils. See Table
1 for an overview of the key findings from this report. Biochar research is in its
relative infancy and as such substantially more data are required before
robust predictions can be made regarding the effects of biochar application to
soils, across a range of soil, climatic and land management factors.

Definition
In this report, biochar is defined as: “charcoal (biomass that has been
pyrolysed in a zero or low oxygen environment) for which, owing to its
inherent properties, scientific consensus exists that application to soil at a
specific site is expected to sustainably sequester carbon and concurrently
improve soil functions (under current and future management), while avoiding
short- and long-term detrimental effects to the wider environment as well as
human and animal health." Biochar as a material is defined as: "charcoal for
application to soils". It should be noted that the term 'biochar' is generally
associated with other co-produced end products of pyrolysis such as 'syngas'.
However, these are not usually applied to soil and as such are only discussed
in brief in the report.

Biochar properties
Biochar is an organic material produced via the pyrolysis of C-based
feedstocks (biomass) and is best described as a ‘soil conditioner’. Despite
many different materials having been proposed as biomass feedstock for
biochar (including wood, crop residues and manures), the suitability of each
feedstock for such an application is dependent on a number of chemical,
physical, environmental, as well as economic and logistical factors. Evidence
suggests that components of the carbon in biochar are highly recalcitrant in
soils, with reported residence times for wood biochar being in the range of
100s to 1,000s of years, i.e. approximately 10-1,000 times longer than
residence times of most soil organic matter (SOM). Therefore, biochar
addition to soil can provide a potential sink for C. It is important to note,
however, that there is a paucity of data concerning biochar produced from
feedstocks other than wood. Owing to the current interest in climate change
mitigation, and the irreversibility of biochar application to soil, an effective
evaluation of biochar stability in the environment and its effects on soil
processes and functioning is paramount. The current state of knowledge
concerning these factors is discussed throughout this report.

Pyrolysis conditions and feedstock characteristics largely control the physico-

chemical properties (e.g. composition, particle and pore size distribution) of

5
the resulting biochar, which in turn, determine the suitability for a given
application, as well as define its behaviour, transport and fate in the
environment. Reported biochar properties are highly heterogeneous, both
within individual biochar particles but mainly between biochar originating from
different feedstocks and/or produced under different pyrolysis conditions. For
example, biochar properties have been reported with cation exchange
capacities (CECs) from negligible to approximately 40 cmolc g-1, C:N ratios
from 7 to 500 (or more). The pH is typically neutral to basic and as such
relatively constant. While such heterogeneity leads to difficulties in identifying
the underlying mechanisms behind reported effects in the scientific literature,
it also provides a possible opportunity to engineer biochar with properties that
are best suited to a particular site (depending on soil type, hydrology, climate,
land use, soil contaminants, etc.).

Effects on soils
Biochar characteristics (e.g. chemical composition, surface chemistry, particle
and pore size distribution), as well as physical and chemical stabilisation
mechanisms of biochar in soils, determine the effects of biochar on soil
functions. However, the relative contribution of each of these factors has been
assessed poorly, particularly under the influence of different climatic and soil
conditions, as well as soil management and land use. Reported biochar loss
from soils may be explained to a certain degree by abiotic and biological
degradation and translocation within the soil profile and into water systems.
Nevertheless, such mechanisms have been quantified scarcely and remain
poorly understood, partly due to the limited amount of long-term studies, and
partly due to the lack of standardised methods for simulating biochar aging
and long-term environmental monitoring. A sound understanding of the
contribution that biochar can make as a tool to improve soil properties,
processes and functioning, or at least avoiding negative effects, largely relies
on knowing the extent and full implications of the biochar interactions and
changes over time within the soil system.

Extrapolation of reported results must be done with caution, especially when

considering the relatively small number of studies reported in the primary
literature, combined with the small range of climatic, crop and soil types
investigated when compared to possible instigation of biochar application to
soils on a national or European scale. To try and bridge the gap between
small scale, controlled experiments and large scale implementation of biochar
application to a range of soil types across a range of different climates
(although chiefly tropical), a statistical meta-analysis was undertaken. A full
search of the scientific literature led to a compilation of studies used for a
meta-analysis of the effects of biochar application to soils and plant
productivity. Results showed a small overall, but statistically significant,
positive effect of biochar application to soils on plant productivity in the
majority of cases. The greatest positive effects were seen on acidic free-
draining soils with other soil types, specifically calcarosols showing no
significant effect (either positive or negative). There was also a general trend
for concurrent increases in crop productivity with increases in pH up on
biochar addition to soils. This suggests that one of the main mechanisms
behind the reported positive effects of biochar application to soils on plant

6
productivity may be a liming effect. However, further research is needed to
confirm this hypothesis. There is currently a lack of data concerning the
effects of biochar application to soils on other soil functions. This means that
although these are qualitatively and comprehensively discussed in this report,
a robust meta-analysis on such effects is as of yet not possible. Table 0.1
provides an overview of the key findings - positive, negative, and unknown -
regarding the (potential) effects on soil, including relevant conditions.

Preliminary, but inconclusive, evidence has also been reported concerning a

possible priming effect whereby accelerated decomposition of SOM occurs
upon biochar addition to soil. This has the potential to both harm crop
productivity in the long term due to loss of SOM, as well as releasing more
CO2 into the atmosphere as increased quantities of SOM is respired from the
soil. This is an area which requires urgent further research.

Biochar incorporation into soil is expected to enhance overall sorption

capacity of soils towards anthropogenic organic contaminants (e.g. polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons - PAHs, pesticides and herbicides), in a
mechanistically different (and stronger) way than amorphous organic matter.
Whereas this behaviour may greatly mitigate toxicity and transport of common
pollutants in soils through reducing their bioavailability, it might also result in
their localised accumulation, although the extent and implications of this have
not been fully assessed experimentally. The potential of biochar to be a
source of soil contamination needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis,
not only with concern to the biochar product itself, but also to soil type and
environmental conditions.

Implications
As highlighted above, before policy can be developed in detail, there is an
urgent need for further experimental research with regard to long-term effects
of biochar application on soil functions, as well as on the behaviour and fate in
different soil types (e.g. disintegration, mobility, recalcitrance), and under
different management practices. The use of representative pilot areas, in
different soil ecoregions, involving biochars produced from a representative
range of feedstocks is vital. Potential research methodologies are discussed
in the report. Future research should also include biochars from non-lignin-
based feedstocks (such as crop residues, manures, sewage and green waste)
and focus on their properties and environmental behaviour and fate as
influenced by soil conditions. It must be stressed that published research is
almost exclusively focused on (sub)tropical regions, and that the available
data often only relate to the first or second year following biochar application.

Preliminary evidence suggests that a tight control on the feedstock materials

and pyrolysis conditions might substantially reduce the emission levels of
atmospheric pollutants (e.g. PAHs, dioxins) and particulate matter associated
to biochar production. While implications to human health remain mostly an
occupational hazard, robust qualitative and quantitative assessment of such
emissions from pyrolysis of traditional biomass feedstock is lacking.

7
Biochar potentially affects many different soil functions and ecosystem
services, and interacts with most of the ‘threats to soil’ outlined by the Soil
Thematic Strategy (COM(2006) 231). It is because of the wide range of
implications from biochar application to soils, combined with the irreversibility
of its application that more interdisciplinary research needs to be undertaken
before policy is implemented. Policy should first be designed with the aim to
invest in fundamental scientific research in biochar application to soil. Once
positive effects on soil have been established robustly for certain biochars at a
specific site (set of environmental conditions), a tiered approach can be
imagined where these combinations of biochar and specific site conditions are
considered for implementation first. A second tier would then consist of other
biochars (from different feedstock and/or pyrolysis conditions) for which more
research is required before site-specific application is considered.

From a climate change mitigation perspective, biochar needs to be

considered in parallel with other mitigation strategies and cannot be seen as
an alternative to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. From a soil
conservation perspective, biochar may be part of a wider practical package of
established strategies and, if so, needs to be considered in combination with
other techniques.

Table 0.1 Overview of key findings (numbers in parentheses refer to relevant sections)

Description Conditions

Empirical evidence of Biochar analogues (pyrogenic BC and charcoal) are found in

substantial quanities in soils of most parts of the world (1.2-1.4)
charcoal in soils exists (long
term)

The principle of improving Anthrosols can be found in many parts of the world, although
normally of very small spatial extent. Contemplation of Anthrosol
soils has been tried
generation at a vast scale requires more comprehensive, detailed
successfully in the past and careful analysis of effects on soils as well as interactions with
other environmental components before implementation (1.2-1.3
and throughout)

Plant production has been Studies have been reported almost exclusively from tropical regions
with specific environmental conditions, and generally for very limited
found to increase
time periods, i.e. 1-2 yr. Some cases of negative effects on crop
significantly after biochar production have also been reported (3.3).
addition to soils
Positives

Liming effect Most biochars have neutral to basic pH and many field experiments
show an increase in soil pH after biochar application when the initial
pH was low. On alkaline soils this may be an undesirable effect.
Sustained liming effects may require regular applications (3.1.4)

High sorption affinity for Biochar application is likely to improve the overall sorption capacity
of soils towards common anthropogenic organic compounds (e.g.
HOC may enhance the
PAHs, pesticides and herbicides), and therefore influence toxicity,
overall sorption capacity of transport and fate of such contaminants. Enhanced sorption
soils towards these trace capacity of a silt loam for diuron and other anionic and cationic
contaminants herbicides has been observed following incorporation of biochar
from crop residues (3.2.2)

Microbial habitat and Biochar addition to soil has been shown to increase microbial
biomass and microbial activity, as well as microbial efficieny as a
provision of refugia for
measure of CO2 released per unit microbial biomass C. The degree
microbes whereby they are of the response appears to be dependent on nutrient avaialbility in
protected from grazing soils

8
 Increases in mycorrhizal Possibly due to: a) alteration of soil physico-chemical properties; b)
indirect effects on mycorrhizae through effects on other soil
abundace which is linked to
microbes; c) plant–fungus signalling interference and detoxification
observed increases in plant of allelochemicals on biochar; or d) provision of refugia from fungal
productivity grazers (3.2.6)

Increases in earthworm Earthworms have been shown to prefer some soils amended with
biochar than those soils alone. However, this is not true of all
abundance and activity
biochars, particularly at high application rates (3.2.6)

The use of biochar Charcoal in Terra Preta soils is limited to Amazonia and have
received many diverse additions other than charcoal. Pyrogenic BC
analogues for assessing
is found in soils in many parts of the world but are of limited
effects of modern biochars feedstock types and pyrolysis conditions (Chapter 1)
is very limited

Soil loss by erosion Top-dressing biochar to soil is likely to increase erosion of the
biochar particles both by wind (dust) and water. Many other effects
of biochar in soil on erosion can be theorised, but remain untested
at present (4.1)

Soil compaction during Any application carries a risk of soil compaction when performed
under inappropriate conditions. Careful planning and management
application
could prevent this effect (4.6)

Risk of contamination Contaminants (e.g. PAHs, heavy metals, dioxins) that may be
present in biochar may have detrimental effects on soil properties
Negatives

and functions. The ocurrence of such compounds in biochar is likely

to derive from either contaminated feedstocks or the use of
processing conditions that may favour their production. Evidence
suggests that a tight control over the type of feedstock used and
o
lower pyrolysis temperatures (<500 C) may be sufficient to reduce
the potential risk for soil contamination (3.2.4)

Residue removal Removal of crop residues for use as a feedstock for biochar
production can forego incorporation of the crop residue into the soil,
potentially leading to multiple negative effects on soils (3.2.5.5)

Occupational health and fire Health (e.g. dust exposure) and fire hazards associated to the
production, transport, application and storage of biochar need to be
hazards
considered when determining the suitability for biochar application.
In the context of occupational health, tight health and safety
measures need to be put in place in order to reduce such risks.
Some of these measures have already proved adequate (5.2)
-1
Reduction in earthworm High biochar application rates of >67 t ha (produced from poultry
litter) were shown to have a negative effect on earthworm survival
survival rates (limited
rates, possibly due to increases in pH or salt levels (3.2.6)
number of cases)

Empirical evidence is Biochar analogues do not exist for many feedstocks, or for some
modern pyrolysis conditions. Biochar can be produced with a wide
extremely scarce for many
variety of properties and applied to soils with a wide variety of
modern biochars in soils properties. Some short term (1-2 yr) evidence exists, but only for a
under modern arable small set of biochar, environmental and soil management factors
management and almost no data is available on long term effect (1.2-1.4)

C Negativity The carbon storage capacity of biochar is widely hypothesised,

although it is still largely unquantified and depends on many factors
Unknown

(environmental, economic, social) in all parts of the life cycle of

biochar and at the several scales of operation (1.5.2 and Chapter 5)

Effects on N cycle N2O emissions depend on effects of biochar addition on soil

hydrology (water-filled pore volume) and associated microbial
processes. Mechanisms are poorly understood and thresholds
largely unknown (1.5.2)

Biochar Loading Capacity BLC is likely to be crop as well as soil dependent leading to potential
incompatibilities between the irreversibility of biochar once applied
(BLC)
to soil and changing crop demands (1.5.1)

Environmental behaviour The extent and implications of the changes that biochar undergoes
in soil remain largely unknown. Although biochar physical-chemical

9
mobility and fate properties and stabilization mechanisms may explain biochar long
mean residence times in soil, the relative contribution of each factor
for its short- and long-term loss has been sparsely assessed,
particularly when influenced by soil environmental conditions. Also,
biochar loss and mobility through the soil profile and into the water
resources has been scarcely quantified and transport mechanisms
remain poorly understood (3.2.1)

Distribution and availability Very little experimental evidence is available on the short- and long-
term occurrence and bioavailability of such contaminants in biochar
of contaminants (e.g. heavy
and biochar-enriched soil. Full and careful risk assessment in this
metals, PAHs) within context is urgently required, in order to relate the bioavailability and
biochar toxicity of the contaminant to biochar type and 'safe' application
rates, biomass feedstock and pyrolysis conditions, as well as soil
type and environmental conditions (3.2.4)

Effect on soil organic matter Various relevant processes are acknowledged but the way these are
influenced by combinations of soil-climate-management factors
dynamics
remains largely unknown (Section 3.2.5)

Pore size and connectivity Although pore size distribution in biochar may significantly alter key
soil physical properties and processes (e.g. water retention,
aeration, habitat), experimental evidence on this is scarce and the
underlying mechanisms can only be hypothesised at this stage (2.3
and 3.1.3)

Soil water Adding biochar to soil can have direct and indirect effects on soil
water retention, which can be short or long lived, and which can be
retention/availability
negative or positive depending on soil type. Positive effects are
dependent on high applications of biochar. No conclusive evidence
was found to allow the establishment of an unequivocal relation
between soil water retention and biochar application (3.1.2)

Soil compaction Various processes associated with soil compaction are relevant to
biochar application, some reducing others increasing soil
compaction. Experimental research is lacking. The main risk to soil
compaction could probably be reduced by establishing a guide of
good practice regarding biochar application (3.1.1 and 4.6)

Priming effect Some inconclusive evidence of a possible priming effect exists in

the literature, but the evidence is relatively inconclusive and covers
only the short term and a very restricted sample of biochar and soil
types (3.2.5.4)

Effects on soil megafauna Neither the effects of direct contact with biochar containing soils on
the skin and respiratory systems of soil megafanua are known, nor
the effects or ingestion due to eating other soil organisms, such as
earthworms, which are likely to contain biochar in their guts (3.2.6.3)

Hydrophobicity The mechnanisms of soil water repellency are understood poorly in

general. How biochar might influence hydrophobicity remains largely
untested (3.1.2.1)

Enhanced decomposition of It is unknow how much subsequent agricultural management

practices (planting, ploughing, etc.) in an agricultural soil with
biochar due to agricultural
biochar may influence (accelerate) the disintegration of biochar in
management the soil, thereby potentially reducing its carbon storage potential
(3.2.3)

Soil CEC There is good potential that biochar can improve the CEC of soil.
However, the effectiveness and duration of this effect after addition
to soils remain understood poorly (2.5 and 3.1.4)

Soil Albedo That biochar will lower the albedo of the soil surface is fairly well
established, but if and where this will lead to a substantial soil
warming effect is untested (3.1.3)

10
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS 11
LIST OF FIGURES 15
LIST OF TABLES 19
LIST OF ACRONYMS 21
LIST OF UNITS 23
LIST OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS AND FORMULAS 25
LIST OF KEY TERMS 27
1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 31
1.1 Biochar in the attention 33
1.2 Historical perspective on soil improvement 35
1.3 Different solutions to similar problems 37
1.4 Biochar and pyrogenic black carbon 37
1.5 Carbon sequestration potential 38
1.5.1 Biochar loading capacity 40
1.5.2 Other greenhouse gasses 41
1.6 Pyrolysis 42
1.6.1 The History of Pyrolysis 43
1.6.2 Methods of Pyrolysis 43
1.7 Feedstocks 45
1.8 Application Strategies 49
1.9 Summary 50
2. PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF BIOCHAR 51
2.1 Structural and Chemical Composition 51
2.1.1 Structural composition 51
2.1.2 Chemical composition and surface chemistry 52
2.2 Particle size distribution 54
2.2.1 Biochar dust 56
2.3 Pore size distribution and connectivity 56
2.4 Thermodynamic stability 58
2.5 CEC and pH 58
2.6 Summary 58
3. EFFECTS ON SOIL PROPERTIES, PROCESSES AND
FUNCTIONS 61
3.1 Properties 61
3.1.1 Soil Structure 61
3.1.1.1 Soil Density 61
3.1.1.2 Soil pore size distribution 63
3.1.2 Water and Nutrient Retention 64
3.1.2.1 Soil water repellency 66
3.1.3 Soil colour, albedo and warming 67
3.1.4 CEC and pH 68

11
 3.2 Soil Processes 69
3.2.1 Environmental behaviour, mobility and fate 69
3.2.2 Sorption of Hydrophobic Organic Compounds (HOCs) 72
3.2.3 Nutrient retention/availability/leaching 76
3.2.4 Contamination 78
3.2.5 Soil Organic Matter (SOM) Dynamics 81
3.2.5.1 Recalcitrance of biochar in soils 81
3.2.5.2 Organomineral interactions 82
3.2.5.3 Accessibility 83
3.2.5.4 Priming effect 83
3.2.5.5 Residue Removal 85
3.2.6 Soil Biology 85
3.2.6.1 Soil microbiota 87
3.2.6.2 Soil meso and macrofauna 89
3.2.6.3 Soil megafauna 90
3.3 Production Function 91
3.3.1 Meta-analysis methods 91
3.3.2 Meta-analysis results 93
3.3.3 Meta-analysis recommendations 98
3.3.4 Other components of crop production function 98
3.4 Summary 98
4. BIOCHAR AND ‘THREATS TO SOIL’ 101
4.1 Soil loss by erosion 101
4.2 Decline in soil organic matter 103
4.3 Soil contamination 103
4.4 Decline in soil biodiversity 105
4.6 Soil compaction 106
4.7 Soil salinisation 106
4.8 Summary 107
5. WIDER ISSUES 109
5.1 Emissions and atmospheric pollution 109
5.2 Occupational health and safety 111
5.3 Monitoring biochar in soil 113
5.4 Economic Considerations 113
5.4.1 Private costs and benefits 113
5.4.2 Social costs and benefits 116
5.5 Is biochar soft geo-engineering? 117
5.6 Summary 118
6. KEY FINDINGS 121
6.1 Summary of Key Findings 121
6.1.1 Background and Introduction 124
6.1.2 Physicochemical properties of Biochar 124
6.1.3 Effects on soil properties, processes and functions 125
6.1.4 Biochar and soil threats 127
6.1.5 Wider issues 127
6.2 Synthesis 128
6.2.1 Irreversibility 128
6.2.2 Quality assessment 128
6.2.3 Scale and life cycle 129

12
 6.2.4 Mitigation/adaptation 129
6.3 Knowledge gaps 131
6.3.1 Safety 131
6.3.2 Soil organic matter dynamics 131
6.3.3 Soil biology 132
6.3.4 Behaviour, mobility and fate 132
6.3.5 Agronomic effects 133
References 135

13
14
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Google TrendsTM result of “biochar”, “Terra Preta” and “black
earth”. The scale is based on the average worldwide traffic of
“biochar” from January 2004 until June 2009 (search
performed on 04/12/2009) 33
Figure 1.2 Google TrendsTM geographical distribution of the search
volume index of “biochar” of the last 12 months from June
2008 to June 2009 (search performed on 16/09/2009). Data is
normalised against the overall search volume by country 34
Figure 1.3 Scientific publications registred in Thompson’s ISI Web of
Science indexed for either biochar or bio-char including those
articles that mention charcoal (search performed on
4/12/2009) 35
Figure 1.4 Distribution of Anthrosols in Amazonia (left; Glaser et al., 2001)
and Europe (middle and right; Toth et al., 2008; Blume and
Leinweber, 2004) 35
Figure 1.5 Comparing tropical with temperate Anthrosols. The left half
shows a profile of a fertile Terra Preta (Anthrosol with
charcoal) created by adding charcoal to the naturally-occurring
nutrient poor Oxisol (far left; photo courtesy of Bruno Glaser).
The right half (far right) is a profile picture of a fertile European
Plaggen Soil (Plaggic Anthrosol; photo courtesy of Erica
Micheli) created by adding peat and manure to the naturally-
occurring nutrient poor sandy soils (Arenosols) of The
Netherlands 36
Figure 1.6 Terms and properties of pyrogenic BC (adopted from Preston
and Schmidt, 2006) 38
Figure 1.7 Diagram of the carbon cycle. The black numbers indicate how
much carbon is stored in various reservoirs, in billions of tons
(GtC = Gigatons of Carbon and figures are circa 2004). The
purple numbers indicate how much carbon moves between
reservoirs each year, i.e. the fluxes. The sediments, as
defined in this diagram, do not include the ~70 million GtC of
carbonate rock and kerogen (NASA, 2008) 39
Figure 1.9 A graph showing the relative proportions of end products after
fast pyrolysis of aspen poplar at a range of temperatures
(adapted from IEA, 2007) 44
Figure 2.1 Putative structure of charcoal (adopted from Bourke et al.,
2007). A model of a microcristalline graphitic structure is
shown on on the left and an aromatic structure containing
oxygen and carbon free radicals on the right 51

15
Figure 3.1 Typical representation of the soil water retention curve as
provided by van Genuchten (1980) and the hypothesized
effect of the addition of biochar to this soil 66
Figure 3.2 The percentage change in crop productivity upon application of
biochar at different rates, from a range of feedstocks along
with varying fertiliserco-amendments. Points represent mean
and bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Numbers next to
bars denote biochar application rates (t ha-1). Numbers in the
two columns on the right show number of total ‘replicates’
upon which the statistical analysis is based (bold) and the
number of ‘experimental treatments’ which have been grouped
for each analysis (italics) 93
Figure 3.3 Percentage change in crop productivity upon application of
biochar at different rates along with varying fertiliserco-
amendments grouped by change in pH caused by biochar
addition to soil. Points represent mean and bars represent
95% confidence intervals. Values next to bars denote change
in pH value. Numbers in the two columns on the right show
number of total ‘replicates’ upon which the statistical analysis
is based (bold) and the number of ‘experimental treatments’
which have been grouped for each analysis (italics) 94
Figure 3.4 The percentage change in crop productivity o upon application
of biochar at different rates along with varying fertiliserco-
amendments to a range of different soils. Points shows mean
and bars so 95% confidence intervals. Numbers in the two
columns on the right show number of total ‘replicates’ upon
which the statistical analysis is based (bold) and the number of
‘experimental treatments’ which have been grouped for each
analysis (italics) 95
Figure 3.5 The percentage change in crop productivity of either the
biomass or the grain upon application of biochar at different
rates along with varying fertiliserco-amendments. Points
shows mean and bars so 95% confidence intervals. Numbers
in the two columns on the right show number of total
‘replicates’ upon which the statistical analysis is based (bold)
and the number of ‘experimental treatments’ which have been
grouped for each analysis (italics) 96
Figure 3.6 The percentage change in crop productivity upon application of
biochar along with a co-amendment of organic fertiliser(o),
inorganic fertiliser(I) or no fertiliser(none). Points shows mean
and bars so 95% confidence intervals. Numbers in the two
columns on the right show number of total ‘replicates’ upon
which the statistical analysis is based (bold) and the number of
‘experimental treatments’ which have been grouped for each
analysis (italics) 97

Figure 5.1 Effect of transportation distance in biochar systems with bioenergy

production using the example of late stover feedstock (high

16
revenue scenario) on net GHG, net energy and net revenue
(adopted from Roberts et al., 2009)

17
LIST OF TABLES

Table 0.1 Overview of key findings

Table 1.1 The mean post-pyrolysis feedstock residues resulting from
different temperatures and residence times (adapted from IEA,
2007) 45
Table 1.2 Summary of key components (by weight) in biochar feedstocks
(adapted from Brown et al., 2009) 46
Table 1.3 Examples of the proportions of nutrients (g kg-1) in feedstocks
(adapted from Chan and Xu, 2009) 47
Table 2.1 Relative proportion range of the four main components of
biochar (weight percentage) as commonly found for a variety
of source materials and pyrolysis conditions (adapted from
Brown, 2009; Antal and Gronli, 2003) 52
Table 2.2 Summary of total elemental composition (C, N, C:N, P, K,
available P and mineral N) and pH ranges and means of
biochars from a variety of feedstocks (wood, green wastes,
crop residues, sewage sludge, litter, nut shells) and pyrolysis
conditions (350-500ºC) used in various studies (adapted from
Chan and Xu, 2009) 53
Table 3.1 Pore size classes in material science vs. soil science 63
Table 6.1 Overview of key findings 121

19
20
LIST OF ACRONYMS

BC Black carbon
CEC Cation Exchange Capacity
DOM Dissolved Organic Matter
HOCs Hydrophobic Organic Compounds
NOM Natural (or Native) Organic Matter
NPs Nanoparticles
OM Organic Matter
PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCDD/PCDFs Dioxins and furans
(S)OC (Soil) Organic Carbon
SOM Soil Organic Matter
SWR Soil Water Repellency
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

21
LIST OF UNITS

µm Micrometer (= 10-6 m)
Bar 1 bar = 100 kPa = 0.987 atm
Cmolc g-1 Centimol of charge (1 cmol kg-1 = 1 meq 100g-1) per
gram
Gt y-1 Gigatonnes per year
J g-1 K-1 Joule (1J = 1 kg m2 sec-2) per gram per Kelvin
J g-1 K-1 Joule per gram per Kelvin
K Kelvin (1 K = oC + 273,15)
kJ mol-1 Kilojoule (= 103 J) per mole (1 mol ≈ 6.022x1023 atoms
or molecules of the pure substance measured)
Mg ha-1 Megagram (= 106 g) per hectare
nm Nanometer (= 10-9 m)
o
C sec-1 Degrees Celsius per second (rate of temperature
increase)
t ha-1 Tonnes per hectare
v v-1 Volume per volume (e.g. 1 ml per 100 ml)
w w-1 Weight per weight (e.g. 1 g per 100 g)

23
LIST OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS AND FORMULAS

Al Aluminium
Ar Arsenic
C Carbon
CaCO3 Calcium carbonate
CaO Calcium oxide
CH4 Methane
Cl Chlorine
CO2 Carbon dioxide
Cr Chromium
Cu Copper
H Hydrogen
H2 Hydrogen gas
Hg Mercury
K Potassium
K2O Potassium oxide
Mg Magnesium
N Nitrogen
N2O Nitrous oxide
Na2O Sodium oxide
NH4+ Ammonium (ion)
Ni Nickel
NO3- Nitrate (ion)
O Oxygen
P Phosphorus
Pb Lead
S Sulphur
Si Silicon
SiO2 Silica (silicon dioxide)
Zn Zinc

25
LIST OF KEY TERMS
Accelerated soil Soil erosion, as a result of anthropogenic activity, in excess of
erosion natural soil formation rates causing a deterioration or loss of one
or more soil functions
Activated carbon (noun) Charcoal produced to optimise its reactive surface area
(e.g. by using steam during pyrolysis)
Anthrosol (count noun) A soil that has been modified profoundly through
human activities, such as addition of organic materials or
household wastes, irrigation and cultivation (WRB, 2006)
Biochar i) (Material) charcoal for application to soil
ii) (Concept) “charcoal (biomass that has been pyrolysed
in a zero or low oxygen environment) for which, owing
to its inherent properties, scientific consensus exists
that application to soil at a specific site is expected to
sustainably sequester carbon and concurrently
improve soil functions (under current and future
management), while avoiding short- and long-term
detrimental effects to the wider environment as well as
human and animal health."
Black carbon (noun) All C-rich residues from fire or heat (including from coal,
gas or petrol)
Black Earth (mass noun) Term synonymous with Chernozem used (e.g. in
Australia) to describe self-mulching black clays (SSSA, 2003)
Char (mass noun) 1. Synonym of ‘charcoal’; 2. charred organic matter
as a result of wildfire (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009)
(verb) synonym of the term ‘pyrolyse’
Charcoal (mass noun) charred organic matter
Chernozem (count noun) A black soil rich in organic matter; from the Russian
‘chernij’ meaning ‘black’ and ‘zemlja’ meaning ‘earth’ or ‘land’
(WRB, 2006)
Coal (mass noun) Combustible black or dark brown rock consisting
chiefly of carbonized plant matter, found mainly in underground
seams and used as fuel (OED, 2003)
Combustion (mass noun) chemistry Rapid chemical combination of a
substance with oxygen, involving the production of heat and light
(OED, 2003)
Decline in soil (soil threat) Reduction of forms of life living in the soil (both in
biodiversity terms of quantity and variety) and of related functions, causing a
deterioration or loss of one or more soil functions
Decline in soil (soil threat) A negative imbalance between the build-up of SOM
organic matter and rates of decomposition leading to an overall decline in SOM
contents and/or quality, causing a deterioration or loss of one or
(SOM) more soil functions
Desertification (soil threat) land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid
areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations
and human activities, causing a deterioration or loss of one or
more soil functions
Dust The finest fraction of biochar, rather than the particulate matter
emitted during pyrolysis. This fraction comprises distinct particle
sizes within the micro- and nano-size range.
Ecosystem The capacity of natural processes and components to provide
functions goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly
Feedstock (noun) Biomass that is pyrolysed in order to produce biochar
Landslides The movement of a mass of rock, debris, artificial fill or earth down
a slope, under the force of gravity
Nanoparticle (noun) Any particle with at least one dimension smaller than 100
nm (e.g. fullerenes or fullerene-like structures, crystalline forms of

27
 silica, cristobalite and tridymite)
Organic carbon (noun) biology C that was originally part of an organism;
(chemistry) C that is bound to at least one hydrogen (H) atom
Pyrolysis (mass noun) The thermal degradation of biomass in the absence
of oxygen leading to the production of condensable vapours,
gases and charcoal
Soil (mass noun) The unconsolidated mineral or organic matter on the
surface of the earth that has been subjected to and shows effects
of genetic and environmental factors of: climate (including water
and temperature effects), and macro- and microorganisms,
conditioned by relief, acting on parent material over a period of
time (ENVASSO, 2008).
(count noun) a spatially explicit body of soil, usually differentiated
vertically into layers formed naturally over time, normally one of a
specific soil class (in a specified soil classification system)
surrounded by soils of other classes or other demarcations like
hard rock, a water body or artificial barriers (ENVASSO, 2008)
Soil compaction (soil threat) The densification and distortion of soil by which total
and air-filled porosity are reduced, causing a deterioration or loss
of one or more soil functions
Soil contamination (soil threat) The accumulation of pollutants in soil above a certain
level, causing a deterioration or loss of one or more soil functions.
Soil erosion (soil threat) The wearing away of the land surface by physical
forces such as rainfall, flowing water, wind, ice, temperature
change, gravity or other natural or anthropogenic agents that
abrade, detach and remove soil or geological material from one
point on the earth's surface to be deposited elsewhere. When the
term ‘soil erosion’ is used in the context of it representing a soil
threat it refers to ‘accelerated soil erosion’.
Soil functions A subset of ecosystem functions: those ecosystem functions that
are maintained by soil
Usage:
Most soil function systems include the following:
1) Habitat function
2) Information function
3) Production function
4) Engineering function
5) Regulation function
Soil organic matter (noun) The organic fraction of the soil exclusive of undecayed
plant and animal residues (SSSA, 2001)
Soil salinisation (soil threat) Accumulation of water soluble salts in the soil, causing
a deterioration or loss of one or more soil functions.
Soil sealing (soil threat and key issue) The destruction or covering of soil by
buildings, constructions and layers, or other bodies of artificial
material which may be very slowly permeable to water (e.g.
asphalt, concrete, etc.), causing a deterioration or loss of one or
more soil functions
Soil threats A phenomenon that causes a deterioration or loss of one or more
soil functions.
Usage:
Eight main threats to soil identified by the EC (2002) with the
addition of desertification:
1. Soil erosion
2. Decline in soil organic matter
3. Soil contamination
4. Soil sealing
5. Soil compaction
6. Decline in soil biodiversity
7. Soil salinisation
8. Landslides

28
 9. Desertification
Soil water the reduction of the affinity of soils to water such that they resist
repellency wetting for periods ranging from a few seconds to hours, days or
weeks (King, 1981)
Terra Preta (noun) Colloquial term for a kind of Anthrosol where charcoal (or
biochar) has been applied to soil along with many other materials,
including pottery shards, turtle shells, animal and fish bones, etc.
Originally found in Brazil. From the Portuguese ‘terra’ meaning
‘earth’ and ‘preta’ meaning ‘black’.

29
1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
Biochar is commonly defined as charred organic matter, produced with the
intent to deliberately apply to soils to sequester carbon and improve soil
properties (based on: Lehmann and Joseph, 2009). The only difference
between biochar and charcoal is in its utilitarian intention; charcoal is
produced for other reasons (e.g. heating, barbeque, etc.) than biochar. In a
physicochemical sense, biochar and charcoal are essentially the same
material. It could be argued that biochar is a term that is used for other
purposes than scientific, i.e. to re-brand charcoal into something more
attractive-sounding to serve a commercial purpose. However, from a soil
science perspective it is useful to be able to distinguish between any charcoal
material and those charcoal materials where care has been taken to avoid
deleterious effects on soils and to promote beneficial ones. As this report
makes clear, the wide variety of soil groups and associated properties and
processes will require specific charcoal properties for specific soils in order to
meet the intention of biochar application. Considering the need to make this
distinction, a new term is required and since biochar is the most common term
currently used, it was selected for this report. The definition of the concept of
biochar used in this report is:
“charcoal (biomass that has been pyrolysed in a zero or low oxygen
environment) for which, owing to its inherent properties, scientific consensus
exists that application to soil at a specific site is expected to sustainably
sequester carbon and concurrently improve soil functions (under current and
future management), while avoiding short- and long-term detrimental effects
to the wider environment as well as human and animal health.” As a material,
biochar is defined as: “charcoal for application to soil”.
The distinction between biochar as a concept and as a material is important.
For example, a particular biochar (material) may comply with all the conditions
in the concept of biochar when applied to field A, but not when applied to field
B. This report investigates the evidence for when, where and how actual
biochar application to soil complies with the concept, or not.
The terms ‘charcoal’ and ‘pyrogenic black carbon (BC)’ are also used in this
report when appropriate according to their definitions above and in the List of
Key Terms. Additionally, BC refers to C-rich residues from fire or heat
(including from coal, gas or petrol).
This report aims to review the state-of-the-art regarding the interactions
between biochar application to soil and its effects on soil properties,
processes and functioning. A number of recent publications have addressed
parts of this objective as well (Sohi et al., 2009; Lehmann and Joseph, 2009;
Collison et al., 2009). This report sets itself apart by i) addressing the issue
from an EU perspective, ii) inclusion of quantitative meta-analyses of selected
effects, and iii) a discussion of biochar for the threats to soil as identified by
the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (COM(2006) 231). In addition, this
h

report is independent, objective and critical.

Biochar is a stable carbon (C) compound created when biomass (feedstock)
is heated to temperatures between 300 and 1000ºC, under low (preferably
zero) oxygen concentrations. The objective of the biochar concept is to abate

31
the enhanced greenhouse effect by sequestering C in soils, while concurrently
improving soil quality. The proposed concept through which biochar
application to soils would lead to C sequestration is relatively straightforward.
Carbondioxide from the atmosphere is fixed in vegetation through
photosynthesis. Biochar is subsequently created through pyrolysis of the plant
material thereby potentially increasing its recalcitrance with respect to the
original plant material. The estimated residence time of biochar-carbon is in
the range of hundreds to thousands of years while the residence time of
carbon in plant material is in the range of decades. Consequently, this would
reduce the CO2 release back to the atmosphere if the carbon is indeed
persistently stored in the soil. The carbon storage potential of biochar is
widely hypothesised, although it is still largely unquantified, particularly when
also considering the effects on other greenhouse gasses (see Section 1.3),
and the secondary effects of large-scale biochar deployment. Concomitant
with carbon sequestration, biochar is intended to improve soil properties and
soil functioning relevant to agronomic and environmental performance.
Hypothesised mechanisms that have been suggested for potential
improvement are mainly improved water and nutrient retention (as well as
improved soil structure, drainage).
Considering the multi-dimensional and cross-cutting nature of biochar, an
imminent need is anticipated for a robust and balanced scientific review to
effectively inform policy development on the current state of knowledge with
reference to biochar application to soils.

How to read this report?

Chapter 1 introduces the concept of biochar and its origins, including a

comparison with European conditions/history.
Chapter 2 reviews the range of physical and chemical properties of biochars
that are most relevant to soils.
Chapter 3 focuses on the interactions between biochar application to soil
and soil properties, processes and functions.
Chapter 4 outlines how biochar application can be expected to influence
threats to soils.
Chapter 5 discusses some key issues regarding biochar that are beyond the
scope of this report.
Chapter 6 summarises the main findings of the previous chapters,
synthesises between these and identifies the key findings. Suggestions for
further reading are inserted where appropriate.

32
1.1 Biochar in the attention
The concept of biochar is increasingly in the attention in both political and
academic arenas, with several countries (e.g. UK, New Zealand, U.S.A.)
establishing ‘biochar research centres’; as well as in the popular media where
it is often portrayed as a miracle cure (or as a potential environmental
disaster). The attention of the media and public given to biochar can be
illustrated by contrasting a GoogleTM search for ‘biochar’ with a search for
‘biofuels’. A Google search for biochar yields 185,000 hits while biofuels yields
5,210,000 hits. Another illustration is given by comparing the search volumes
of ‘biochar’, ‘Terra Preta’ and ‘black earth’ over the last years, testifying the
recent increase in attention in and exposure of biochar (Figure 1.1, made with
Google TrendsTM).

14
Search Volume Index [-]

12 BIOCHAR
TERRA PRETA
10 BLACK EARTH

6
TM
Google Trends

0
Jul 17 2005

Jun 17 2007

Nov 4 2007
Jan 28 2007

Aug 10 2008
Jan 4 2004

May 23 2004

May 17 2009
Oct 10 2004

Feb 27 2005

Dec 4 2005

Apr 23 2006

Sep 10 2006

Mar 23 2008

Oct 4 2009
Dec 28 2008

Figure 1.1 Google TrendsTM result of “biochar”, “Terra Preta” and “black earth”. The scale is
based on the average worldwide traffic of “biochar” from January 2004 until June 2009 (search
performed on 04/12/2009)

The geographical interest in biochar can be explored further by using the

search volume index of biochar; the total number of searches normalised by
the overall search volume by country. Over the last 12 months the search
volume index for biochar was highest in Australia and New Zealand (Figure
1.2). The actual attention for biochar in Australia may even be higher, since in
Australia biochar is also referred to as ‘Agrichar’, one of its trade names.

33
Figure 1.2 Google TrendsTM geographical distribution of the search volume index of “biochar” of
the last 12 months from June 2008 to June 2009 (search performed on 16/09/2009). Data is
normalised against the overall search volume by country

An indication for the attention devoted to biochar by the scientific community

is provided by performing a search in the scientific literature search engines
Thompson’s ISI Web of Science and Google ScholarTM. A search in Google
ScholarTM yielded 724 hits for biochar and 48,600 hits for biofuels (searches
undertaken on 16/09/2009). If we consider ‘Terra Preta’ – a Hortic Anthrosol
found in Amazonia – in comparison to biochar, a search yielded 121,000 hits
on Google and 1,490 on Google Scholar. A search in the ISI Web of Science
for those articles indexed for either biochar or bio-char yielded a total of 81
articles (Figure 1.3). Three authors are independently involved in 22 articles
(~25%) of these 81 articles (Lehmann (9); Derimbas (8); Davaajav (8)). Out of
the 81 articles 27 articles include a reference to charcoal (Figure 1.3). This is
an indication of the relative small number of scientists currently involved in
biochar research, although the number of articles is rapidly increasing (Figure
1.3). Finally, the oldest paper appearing in either ISI Web of ScienceTM or
ScopusTM dealing with ‘biochar’, ‘Terra Preta’ or ‘black earth’ dates from 1998,
1984 and 1953, respectively.

34
 40
total biochar OR bio-char in ISI

35
biochar AND charcoal OR bio-char AND charcoal in ISI

30
Nr of articles in ISI (n)

25

20

15

10

0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 1.3 Scientific publications registred in Thompson’s ISI Web of Science indexed for either
biochar or bio-char including those articles that mention charcoal (search performed on
4/12/2009)

1.2 Historical perspective on soil improvement

Man-made soils (Anthrosols) enriched with charcoal are found as small
pockets (10s – 200 m in diameter) close to both current and historic human
settlements throughout Amazonia (see Figure 1.4) which are estimated to
cover a total area of 6,000 – 18,000 km2 (Sombroek and Carvalho de Souza,
2000). A rapidly expanding body of scientific literature has reached the
consensus that these soils were created by indigenous people, as far back as
10,000 yr BP (Woods et al., 2009), with varying depth (down to 1 m).

Figure 1.4 Distribution of Anthrosols in Amazonia (left; Glaser et al., 2001) and Europe (right;
Blume and Leinweber, 2004)

The first Anthrosols in Europe, which are mostly enriched with organic
material from peatlands and heathlands, have been dated to 3,000 yr BP on

35
the German island of Sylt (Blume and Leinweber, 2004). The largest expanse,
from a 3,500 km2 total European area of man-made soils (Plaggic
Anthrosols), was created during the Middle Ages in the nutrient poor, dry
sandy soils (Arenosols) of The Netherlands, northern Belgium and north-
western Germany (Figure 1.4) to similar depths as their Amazonian
counterparts (i.e. down to 1 m).
Such a vast single area of Anthrosols is rare, if not unique, and may be
explained by the relatively high population density (and subsequent food
demand) combined with environmental factors, i.e. the presence of extensive
peat deposits in close proximity to the nutrient poor free-draining soil. Much
more common are small scale Anthrosols, pockets of man-made soils close to
settlements, as an inevitable consequence or planned soil conditioning, by a
‘permanent’ human settlement that continuously produces organic waste.
Many Anthrosols do not appear on the EU soil distribution map because of
their small size in relation to the 1:1,000,000 scale of the Soil Geographical
Database of Eurasia, which is the basis of the map (Toth et al., 2008).
However, numerous small scale Anthrosols have been reported across the
European continent, e.g. Scotland (Meharg et al., 2006; Davidson et al.,
2006), Ireland, Italy, Spain and northwest Russia (Giani et al., 2004). Based
on their formation, it can be assumed that Anthrosols exist in other parts of
Europe as well, but data are lacking.

Figure 1.5 Comparing tropical with temperate Anthrosols. The left half shows a profile of a
fertile Terra Preta (Anthrosol with charcoal) created by adding charcoal to the naturally-
occurring nutrient poor Oxisol (far left; photo courtesy of Bruno Glaser). The right half (far
right) is a profile picture of a fertile European Plaggen Soil (Plaggic Anthrosol; photo courtesy of
Erica Micheli) created by adding peat and manure to the naturally-occurring nutrient poor
sandy soils (Arenosols) of The Netherlands

Although both European and Amazonian Anthrosols were enriched to

increase their agricultural performance, there is an important distinction
between the Plaggic Anthrosols of Europe and the Hortic Anthrosols of
Amazonia (Figure 1.5). Plaggic is from the Dutch ‘Plag’ meaning a cut out
section of the organic topsoil layer, including vegetation (grass or heather)
while Hortic Anthrosol translates freely into ‘kitchen soil’. These names are
reflected in their composition, i.e. Plaggic Anthrosols were made by adding
organic topsoil material and peat (early Middle Ages) and mixed with manure
(late Middle Ages) while Hortic Anthrosols were created by a wide variety of
organic and mineral materials, ranging from animal bones to charcoal and
pottery fragments. What sets the Terra Preta apart from other Hortic

36
Anthrosols is the high proportion of charcoal. It is assumed that the charcoal
was made deliberately for application to soil, i.e. not just charred remains from
clearing and burning the forest.

1.3 Different solutions to similar problems

The challenges faced by the people of two very different environments
(tropical rain forest vs. temperate climate on largely open or partially
deforested land) appear similar in the sense of needing to grow crops on soils
that naturally had low nutrient and water retention. One can only speculate as
to what exactly the reasons were for the people living at the time to either add
or not add charcoal to their soils. In addition to the available supply of organic
materials, possible explanations may be related to the relative value of the
different organic materials and contrasting residence times of SOM. In a
simplified scenario, the colder climate in Europe means that microbial
decomposition occurs much more slowly than in the tropics, leading to much
longer residence times of organic matter. The recalcitrance of the peat and
plaggen that were added to the soil meant that the benefits from increased
water and (to a lesser degree) nutrient retention lasted long enough to make it
worth the investment. In tropical soils, however, the recalcitrance of the
organic matter that was added to the soil needed to be greater to get a return
that was worth the investment. Charring organic matter may have been a
conscious policy to achieve this. Of course, wood and charcoal were being
produced in Europe at the time as well. However, other uses of these
materials were likely to be more valuable, e.g. the burning of wood in fire
places to heat living accommodations and the use of charcoal to achieve high
enough temperatures for extracting metals from ores.
Because of the relatively small areal extent of Anthrosols, many of their
locations may not be known or recognised presently. It is possible that small
pockets of Anthrosols exist in Europe, created at different times in history,
where greater amounts of charcoal are present than in the Plaggic Anthrosols.
Potentially, identification and study of these sites (including chronosequences)
could provide valuable information regarding the interactions between
charcoal and environmental factors prevalent in Europe.

1.4 Biochar and pyrogenic black carbon

A potential analogue for biochar may be found in the charcoal produced by
wildfires (or pyrogenic black carbon – BC – as it is often referred to) found
naturally in soils across the world, and in some places even makes up a larger
proportion of total organic C in the soil than in some Terra Preta soils. Preston
and Schmidt (2006) showed an overview of studies on non-forested sites in
different parts of the world with BC making up between 1 and 80% of total
SOC. For example, BC was found to constitute 10-35% of the total SOC
content for five soils from long-term agricultural research sites across the
U.S.A. (Skjemstad et al., 2002). Schmidt et al. (1999) studied pyrogenic BC
contents of chernozemic soils (Cambisol, Luvisol, Phaeozem, Chernozem and
Greyzem) in Germany and found BC to make up 2-45% of total SOC (mean of
14%).

37
Figure 1.6 Terms and properties of pyrogenic BC (adopted from Preston and Schmidt, 2006)

However, it is important to bear in mind that, while the range of BC materials

produced by wildfire overlaps with the range of biochar materials (i.e. the
continuum from charred biomass to soot and graphite; Figure 1.6), the
composition and properties of biochar can be very different to pyrogenic BC
(see Chapter 2). The two main responsible factors are feedstock and pyrolysis
conditions. In a wildfire, the feedstock is the aboveground biomass (and
sometimes peat and roots) while for biochar any organic feedstock can
theoretically be used from wood and straw to chicken manure (Chapter 2). In
a pyrolysis oven, the pyrolysis conditions can be selected and controlled,
including maximum temperature and duration but also the rate of temperature
increase, and inclusion of steam, or e.g. KOH, activation and oxygen
conditions.

1.5 Carbon sequestration potential

Globally, soil is estimated to hold more organic carbon (1,100 Gt; 1
Gt=1,000,000,000 tonnes) than the atmosphere (750 Gt) and the terrestrial
biosphere (560 Gt) (Post et al., 1990; Sundquist, 1993). In the Kyoto Protocol
on Climate Change of 1997, which was adopted in the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 3.4 allows organic carbon
stored in arable soils to be included in calculations of net carbon emissions. It
speaks of the possibility of subtracting the amounts of CO2 removed from the
atmosphere into agricultural sinks, from the assigned target reductions for
individual countries. SOC sequestration in arable agriculture has been
researched (Schlesinger, 1999; Smith et al., 2000a, b; Freibauer et al., 2002;
West & Post, 2002; Sleutel et al., 2003; Janzen, 2004; King et al., 2004; Lal,
2004) against the background of organic carbon (OC) credit trading schemes
(Brown et al., 2001; Johnson & Heinen, 2004). However, fundamental
knowledge on attainable SOC contents (relative to variation in environmental
factors) is still in its infancy, and it is mostly approached by modelling (Falloon
et al., 1998; Pendall et al., 2004).
The principle of using biochar for carbon (C) sequestration is related to the
role of soils in the C-cycle (Figure 1.7). As Figure 1.7 shows, the global flux of
CO2 from soils to the atmosphere is in the region of 60 Gt of C per year. This
CO2 is mainly the result of microbial respiration within the soil system as the
microbes decompose soil organic matter (SOM). Components of biochar are
proposed to be considerably more recalcitrant than SOM and as such are only
decomposed very slowly, over a time frame which can be measured in

38
hundreds or thousands of years. This means that biochar allows carbon input
into soil to be increased greatly compared to the carbon output through soil
microbial respiration, and it is this that is the basis behind biochar’s possible
carbon negativity and hence its potential for climate change mitigation.

Figure 1.7 Diagram of the carbon cycle. The black numbers indicate how much carbon is stored
in various reservoirs, in billions of tons (GtC = Gigatons of Carbon and figures are circa 2004).
The purple numbers indicate how much carbon moves between reservoirs each year, i.e. the
fluxes. The sediments, as defined in this diagram, do not include the ~70 million GtC of
carbonate rock and kerogen (NASA, 2008)

Although Figure 1.7 is clearly a simplification of the C-cycle as it occurs in

nature, the numbers are well established (NASA, 2008) and relatively
uncontroversial. A calculation of the fluxes, while being more a ‘back of the
envelope’ calculation, than precise mathematics, is highly demonstrative of
the anthropogenic influence on atmospheric CO2 levels. When all of the sinks
are added together (that is the fluxes of CO2 leaving the atmosphere) the total
amount of C going into sinks is found to be in the region of 213.35 Gt per
year. Conversely, when all of the C fluxes emitted into the atmosphere from
non-anthropogenic (natural) sources are added, they total 211.6 Gt per year.
This equates to a net loss of carbon from the atmosphere of 1.75 Gt C.
It is for this reason that the relatively small flux of CO2 from anthropogenic
sources (5.5 Gt C per year) is of such consequence as it turns the overall C
flux from the atmosphere from a loss of 1.75 Gt per year, to a net gain of 3.75
Gt C per year. This is in relatively close agreement with the predicted rate of
CO2 increase of about 3 Gt of C per year (IPCC, 2001). It is mitigation of this
net gain of CO2 to the atmosphere that biochar’s addition to soil is posited for.
Lehmann et al. (2006) estimate a potential global C-sequestration of 0.16 Gt
yr-1 using current forestry and agricultural wastes, such as forest residues, mill
residues, field crop residues, and urban wastes for biochar production. Using

39
projections of renewable fuels by 2100, the same authors estimate
sequestration to reach a potential range of 5.5-9.5 Gt yr-1, thereby exceeding
current fossil fuel emissions. However, the use of biochar for climate change
mitigation is beyond the scope of this report that focuses on the effects of
biochar addition to soils with regard to physical, chemical and biological
effects, as well as related effects on soil and ecosystem functioning.

1.5.1 Biochar loading capacity

Terra Preta soils have been shown to contain about 50 t C ha-1 in the form of
BC, down to a depth of approximately 1 meter (approximately double the
amount relative to pre-existing soil), and these soils are highly fertile when
compared to the surrounding soils. This has lead to the idea of biochar being
applied to soil to sequester carbon and maintain or improve the soil
production function (e.g. crop yields), as well as the regulation function and
habitat function of soils. Controlled experiments have been undertaken to look
at the effects of different application rates of biochar to soils.
At present, however, it is not clear whether there is a maximum amount of C,
in the form of biochar, which can be safely added to soils without
compromising other soil functions or the wider environment; that is, what is
the ‘biochar loading capacity’ (BLC) of a given soil? It will be important to
determine if the BLC varies between soil types and whether it is influenced by
the crop type grown on the soil. In order to maximise the amount of biochar
which can be stored in soils without impacting negatively on other soil
functions, the biochar loading capacity of different soils exposed to different
environmental and climatic conditions specific to the site will have to be
quantified for different types of biochar.
The organic matter fractions of some soils in Europe have been reported to
consist of approximately 14% (up to 45%) BC or charcoal (see Section 1.4),
which are both analogues of biochar as previously discussed. Lehmann and
Rondon (2005) reported that at loadings up to 140 t C ha-1 (in a weathered
tropical soil) positive yield effects still occurred. However, it should be noted
that some experiments report that some crops experience a loss of the
positive effects of biochar addition to soil at a much lower application rate. For
example, Rondon et al. (2007) reported that the beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
showed positive yield effects on biochar application rates up to 50 t C ha-1 that
disappeared at an application rate of 60 t C ha-1 with a negative effect on yield
being reported at application rates of 150 t C ha-1. This shows that the BLC is
likely to be crop dependent as well as probably both soil and climate
dependent. Combined with the irreversibility of biochar application to soil, this
highlights the complex nature of calculating a soil’s BLC as future croppings
should be taken into account to ensure that future crop productivity is not
compromised if the crop type for a given field is changed. Apart from effects
on plant productivity, it can be imagined that other effects, on for example soil
biology or transport of fine particles to ground and surface water, should be
taken into account when ‘calculating’ or deriving the BLC for a specific site.
Also, the BLC concept would need to be developed for both total (final)
amount and the rate of application, i.e. the increase in the total amount over
time. The rate of application would need to consist of a long term rate (i.e. t
ha-1 yr-1 over 10 or 100 years) as well as a ‘per application’ rate, both

40
determined by evidence of direct and indirect effects on soil and the wider
environment.
Another consideration regarding the biochar loading capacity of a soil is the
risk of smouldering combustion. Organic soils that dry out sufficiently are
capable of supporting below ground smouldering combustion that can
continue for long time periods (years in some cases). It is feasible that soils
which experience very high to extreme loading rates of biochar and are
subject to sufficiently dry conditions could support smouldering fires. Ignition
of such fires could occur both naturally, e.g. by lightening strike, or
anthropogenically. What the biochar content threshold would be, how the
threshold would change according to environmental conditions, and how
much a risk this would be in non-arid soils remains unclear, but is certainly
worthy of thought and future investigation.

1.5.2 Other greenhouse gasses

Carbon dioxide is not the only gas emitted from soil with the potential to
influence the climate. Methane (CH4) production also occurs as a part of the
carbon cycle. It is produced by the soil microbiota under anaerobic conditions
through a process known as methanogenesis and is approximately 21 times
more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 over a time horizon of 100 years.
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is produced as a part of the nitrogen (N) cycle through
process known as nitrification and denitrification which are carried out by the
soil microbiota. Nitrous oxide is 310 times more potent as a greenhouse gas
than CO2over a time horizon of 100 years (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2002).
Whilst these gases are more potent greenhouse gases than CO2, only
approximately 8% of emitted greenhouse gases are CH4 and only 5% are
N2O, with CO2 making up approximately 83% of the total greenhouse gases
emitted. Eighty percent of N20 and 50% of CH4 emitted are produced by soil
processes in managed ecosystems (US Environmental Protection Agency,
2002). It should be noted that these figures detail total proportions of each
greenhouse gas and are not weighted to account for climatic forcing.
In one study, biochar addition to soils has been shown to reduce the emission
of both CH4 and N2O. Rondon et al. (2005) reported that a near complete
suppression of methane upon biochar addition at an application rate of 2% w
w-1 to soil. It was hypothesised that the mechanism leading to reduced
emission of CH4 is increased soil aeration leading to a reduction in frequency
and extent of anaerobic conditions under which methanogenesis occurs.
Pandolfo et al. (1994) investigated CH4 adsorption capacity of several
activated carbons (from coconut feedstock) in a series of laboratory
experiments. Their results showed increased CH4 ‘adsoprtion’ with increase
surface area of the activated carbon, particularly for micropores (<2µm).
These charcoal materials were activated using steam or KOH, however, and it
remains to be tested how different biochar materials added to soils in the field
will interact with methane dynamics. The influence of biochar on SOM
dynamics are discussed later in this report (Section 3.2.5).
A reduction in N2O emissions of 50% in soybean plantations and 80% in
grass stands was also reported (Rondon et al. 2005). The authors

41
hypothesised that the mechanism leading to this reduction in N2O emissions
was due to slower N cycling, possibly as a result of an increase in the C:N
ratio. It is also possible that the N that exists within the biochar is not
bioavailable when introduced to the soil as it is bound up in heterocyclic form
(Camps, 2009; Personal communication). Yanai et al. (2007) measured N2O
emissions from soils after rewetting in the laboratory and found variable
results, i.e. an 89% suppression of N2O emissions at 73-78% water-filled pore
space contrasting to a 51% increase at 83% water-filled pore space. These
results indicate that the effect of biochar additions to soils on the N cycle
depend greatly on the associated changes in soil hydrology and that
thresholds of water content effects on N20 production may be very important
and would have to be studied for a variety of soil-biochar-climate conditions.
Furthermore, if biochar addition to soil does slow the N-cycle, this could have
possible consequences on soil fertility in the long term. This is because nitrate
production in the soil may be slowed beyond the point of plant uptake,
meaning that nitrogen availability, often the limiting factor for plant growth in
soils, may be reduced leading to concurrent reduction in crop productivity.
Yanai et al. (2007) reported that this effect did change over time, but their
experiment only ran for 5 days and so extrapolation of the results to the time
scales at which biochar is likely to persist in soil is not possible. Further
research is therefore needed to better elucidate the effects and allow
extrapolation to the necessary time scales.

1.6 Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is the chemical decomposition of an organic substance by heating in
the absence of oxygen. The word is derived from Greek word ‘pyro’ meaning
fire and “lysis” meaning decomposition or breaking down into constituent
parts. In practice it is not possible to create a completely oxygen free
environment and as such a small amount of oxidation will always occur.
However, the degree of oxidation of the organic matter is relatively small
when compared to combustion where almost complete oxidation of organic
matter occurs, and as such a substantially larger proportion of the carbon in
the feedstock remains and is not given off as CO2. However, with pyrolysis
much of the C from the feedstock is still not recovered in charcoal form, but
converted to either gas or oil.
Pyrolysis occurs spontaneously at high temperatures (generally above
approximately 300°C for wood, with the specific temperature varying with
material). It occurs in nature when vegetation is exposed to wildfires or comes
into contact with lava from volcanic eruptions. At its most extreme, pyrolysis
leaves only carbon as the residue and is called carbonization. The high
temperatures used in pyrolysis can induce polymerisation of the molecules
within the feedstocks, whereby larger molecules are also produced (including
both aromatic and aliphatic compounds), as well as the thermal
decomposition of some components of the feedstocks into smaller molecules.
This is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.5.1.
The process of pyrolysis transforms organic materials into three different
components, being gas, liquid or solid in different proportions depending upon
both the feedstock and the pyrolysis conditions used. Gases which are
produced are flammable, including methane and other hydrocarbons which

42
can be cooled whereby they condense and form an oil/tar residue which
generally contains small amounts of water. The gasses (either condenses or
in gaseous form) and liquids can be upgraded and used as a fuel for
combustion.
The remaining solid component after pyrolysis is charcoal, referred to as
biochar when it is produced with the intention of adding it to soil to improve it
(see List of Key terms). The physical and chemical properties of biochar are
discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.

The process of pyrolysis has been adopted by the chemical industry for the
production of a range of compounds including charcoal, activated carbon,
methanol and syngas, to turn coal into coke as well as producing other
chemicals from wood. It is also used for the breaking down, or ‘cracking’ of
medium-weight hydrocarbons from oil to produce lighter hydrocarbons such
as petrol.
A range of compounds in the natural environment are produced by both
anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic pyrolysis. These include compounds
released from the incomplete burning of petrol and diesel in internal
combustion engines, through to particles produced from wood burned in forest
fires, for example. These substances are generally referred to as black carbon
(see List of Key terms) in the scientific literature and exist in various forms
ranging form small particulate matter found in the atmosphere, through to a
range of sizes found in soils and sediments where it makes up a significant
part of the organic matter (Schmidt et al., 1999; Skjemstad et al., 2002;
Preston et al., 2006; Hussain et al. 2008).

1.6.1 The History of Pyrolysis

While it is possible that pyrolysis was first used to make charcoal over 7,000
years ago for the smelting of copper, or even 30,000 years ago for the
charcoal drawings of the Chauvet cave (Antal, 2003), the first definitive
evidence of pyrolysis for charcoal production comes from over 5,500 years
ago in Southern Europe and the Middle East. By 4,000 years ago, the start of
the Bronze Age, pyrolysis use for the production of charcoal must have been
widespread. This is because only burning charcoal allowed the necessary
temperatures to be reached to smelt tin with copper and so produce bronze
(Earl, 1995).
A range of compounds can be found in the natural environment that is
produced by both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic pyrolysis. These
include compounds released from the incomplete burning of petrol and diesel
in internal combustion engines, through to being produced from wood in forest
fires for example.

1.6.2 Methods of Pyrolysis

Although the basic process of pyrolysis, that of heating a C-containing
feedstock in an limited oxygen environment, is always the same, different
methodologies exist, each with different outputs.
Apart from the feedstocks used, which are discussed further is Section 1.7,
the main variables that are often manipulated are pyrolysis temperature, and

43
the residence time of the feedstock in the pyrolysis unit. Temperature itself
can have a large effect on the relative proportions of end product from a
feedstock (Fig. 1.9).

80
Biochar
70 Biooil
Gas
60
Water
50
Yield (%wt)

40

30

20

10

0
400 450 500 550 600 650

Temperature (°C)

Figure 1.8 A graph showing the relative proportions of end products after fast pyrolysis of aspen
poplar at a range of temperatures (adapted from IEA, 2007)

Residence times of both the solid constituents and the hot vapor produced
under pyrolysis conditions can also have a large effect on the relative
proportions of each end product of pyrolysis (Table 1.1). In the nomenclature,
four different types of pyrolysis are generally referred to, with the difference
between each being dependent on temperature and residence time of solid or
vapour in the pyrolysis unit, or a combination of both. The four different types
of pyrolysis are fast, intermediate and slow pyrolysis (with slow pyrolysis often
referred to as “carbonisation” due to the relatively high proportion of
carbonaceous material it produces: biochar) along with gasification (due to the
high proportion of syngas produced).

Table 1.1 shows that different pyrolysis conditions lead to different proportions
of each end product (liquid, char or gas). This means that specific pyrolysis
conditions can be tailored to each desired outcome. For example, the IEA
report (2007) stated that fast pyrolysis was of particular interest as liquids can
be stored and transported more easily and at lower cost than solid or gaseous
biomass forms. However, with regard to the use of biochar as a soil
amendment and for climate change mitigation it is clear that slow pyrolysis,
would be preferable, as this maximises the yield of char, the most stable of
the pyrolysis end products.

44
Table 1.1 The mean post-pyrolysis feedstock residues resulting from different temperatures and
residence times (adapted from IEA, 2007)

Mode Conditions Liquid Biochar Syngas

Moderate temperature, ~500°C, short hot

Fast pyrolysis 75% 12% 13%
vapour residence time of ~ 1 s
Intermediate Moderate temperature ~500°C, moderate
50% 20% 30%
Pyrolysis hot vapour residence time of 10 – 20 s
Slow Pyrolysis Low temperature ~400°C,
30% 35% 35%
(Carbonisation) very long solids residence time
High temperature ~800°C,
Gasification 5% 10% 85%
long vapour residence time

Owing to the fact that end products such as flammable gas can be recycled
into the pyrolysis unit and so provide energy for subsequent pyrolysis cycles,
costs, both in terms of fuel costs, and of carbon emission costs, can be
minimised. Furthermore, the pyrolysis reaction itself becomes exothermic
after a threshold is passed, thereby reducing the required energy input to
maintain the reaction. However, it is important to note that other external costs
are associated with pyrolysis, most of which will be discussed in Section 2.4.
For example, fast pyrolysis requires that the feedstock is dried to less than
10% water (w w-1). This is done so that the bio-oil is not contaminated with
water. The feedstock then needs to be ground to a particle size of ca. 2 mm to
ensure that there is sufficient surface area to ensure rapid reaction under
pyrolysis conditions (IEA, 2007). The grinding of the feedstock, and in some
cases also the drying require energy input and will increase costs, as well as
of the carbon footprint of biochar production if the required energy is not
produced by carbon neutral sources.
As well as different pyrolysis conditions, the scale at which pyrolysis is
undertaken can also vary greatly. The two different scales discussed
throughout this report are that of ‘Closed’ vs ‘Open’ scenarios. Closed refers
to the scenario in which relatively small, possibly even mobile, pyrolysis units
are used on each farm site, with crop residues and other bio-wastes being
pyrolysed on site and added back to the same farm’s soils. Open refers to
biowastes being accumulated and pyrolysed off-site at industrial scale
pyrolysis plants, before the biochar is redistributed back to farms for
application to soil. The scales at which these scenarios function are very
different, and each brings its own advantages and disadvantages.

1.7 Feedstocks
Feedstock is the term conventionally used for the type of biomass that is
pyrolysed and turned into biochar. In principle, any organic feedstock can be
pyrolysed, although the yield of solid residue (char) respective to liquid and
gas yield varies greatly (see Section 1.6.2) along with physico-chemical
properties of the resulting biochar (see Chapter 2).
Feedstock is, along with pyrolysis conditions, the most important factor
controlling the properties of the resulting biochar. Firstly, the chemical and

45
structural composition of the biomass feedstock relates to the chemical and
structural composition of the resulting biochar and, therefore, is reflected in its
behaviour, function and fate in soils. Secondly, the extent of the physical and
chemical alterations undergone by the biomass during pyrolysis (e.g. attrition,
cracking, microstructural rearrangements) are dependent on the processing
conditions (mainly temperature and residence times). Table 1.2 provides a
summary of some of the key components in representative biochar
feedstocks.

Table 1.2 Summary of key components (by weight) in biochar feedstocks (adapted from Brown
et al., 2009)

Ash Lignin Cellulose

-1
(w w )
Wheat straw 11.2 14 38
Maize residue 2.8-6.8 15 39
Switchgrass 6 18 32
Wood (poplar, 0.27 - 1 26 - 30 38 - 45
willow, oak)

Cellulose and ligning undergo thermal degradation at temperatures ranging

between 240-350ºC and 280-500ºC, respectively (Sjöström, 1993; Demirbas,
2004). The relative proportion of each component will, therefore, determine
the extent to which the biomass structure is retained during pyrolysis, at any
given temperature. For example, pyrolysis of wood-based feedstocks
generates coarser and more resistant biochars with carbon contents of up to
80%, as the rigid ligninolytic nature of the source material is retained in the
biochar residue (Winsley, 2007). Biomass with high lignin contents (e.g. olive
husks) have shown to produce some of the highest biochar yields, given the
stability of lignin to thermal degradation, as demonstrated by Demirbas
(2004). Therefore, for comparable temperatures and residence times, lignin
loss is tipically less than half of cellulose loss (Demirbas, 2004).
Whereas woody feedstock generally contains low proportions (< 1% by
weight) of ash, biomass with high mineral contents such as grass, grain husks
and straw residues generally produce ash-rich biochar (Demirbas 2004).
These latter feedstocks may contain ash up to 24% or even 41% by weight,
such as rice husk (Amonette and Joseph, 2009) and rice hulls (Antal and
Grønly, 2003), respectively. The mineral content of the feedstock is largely
retained in the resulting biochar, where it concentrates due to the gradual loss
of C, hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) during processing (Demirbas 2004). The
mineral ash content of the feedstock can vary widely and evidence seems to
suggest a relationship between that and biochar yield (Amonette and Joseph,
2009). Table 1.3 provides an example of the elemental composition of
representative feedstocks.

46
Table 1.3 Examples of the proportions of nutrients (g kg-1) in feedstocks (adapted from Chan
and Xu, 2009)

Ca Mg K P
-1
(g kg )
Wheat straw 7.70 4.30 2.90 0.21
Maize cob 0.18 1.70 9.40 0.45
Maize stalk 4.70 5.90 0.03 2.10
Olive kernel 97.0 20.0 - -
Forest residue 130 19.0 - -

In the plant, Ca occurs mainly within cell walls, where it is bound to organic
acids, while Mg and P are bound to complex organic compounds within the
cell (Marschner, 1995). Potassium is the most abundant cation in higher
plants and is involved in plant nutrition, growth and osmoregulation
(Schachtman and Schroeder, 1994). Nitrogen, Mn and Fe also occur
associated to a number of organic and inorganic forms. During thermal
degradation of the biomass, potassium (K), chlorine (Cl) and N vaporize at
relatively low temperatures, while calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), phosphorus
(P) and sulphur (S), due to increased stability, vaporise at temperatures that
are considerably higher (Amonette and Joseph, 2009). Other relevant
minerals can occur in the biomass, such as silicon (Si), which occurs in the
cell walls, mostly in the form of silica (SiO2).
Many different materials have been proposed as biomass feedstocks for
biochar, including wood, grain husks, nut shells, manure and crop residues,
while those with the highest carbon contents (e.g. wood, nut shells),
abundancy and lower associated costs are currently used for the production
of activated carbon (e.g. Lua et al., 2004; Martinez et al., 2006; Gonzaléz et
al., 2009;). Other feedstocks are potentially available for biochar production,
among which biowaste (e.g. sewage sludge, municipal waste, chicken litter)
and compost. Nevertheless, a risk is associated to the use of such source
materials, mostly linked to the occurrence of hazardous components (e.g.
organic pollutants, heavy metals). Crystalline silica has also been found to
occur in some biochars. Rice husk and rice straw contain unusually high
levels of silica (220 and 170 g kg-1) compared to that in other major crops.
High concentrations of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) can be found in pulp and
paper sludge (van Zwieten et al., 2007) and are retained in the ash fraction of
some biochars.
Regarding the characteristics of some plant feedstocks, Collison et al. (2009)
go further, suggesting that even within a biomass feedstock type, different
composition may arise from distinct growing environmental conditions (e.g.
soil type, temperature and moisture content) and those relating to the time of
harvest. In corroboration, Wingate et al. (2009) have shown that the adsorbing
properties of a charcoal for copper ions can be improved 3-fold by carefully
selecting the growth conditions of the plant biomass (in this case, stinging
nettles). Even within the same plant material, compositional heterogeneity has

47
also been found to occur among different parts of the same plant (e.g. maize
cob and maize stalk, Table 1.3).
Lignocellulosic biomass is an obvious feedstock choice because it is one of
the most abundant naturally occurring available materials (Amonette and
Joseph, 2009). The spatio-temporal occurrence of biomass feedstock will
influence the availability of specific biochars and its economic value (e.g.
distance from source to field). For example, in an area with predominantly root
crops on calcareous sandy arable soils and a dry climate, biochars that
provide more water retention and are mechanically strong (e.g. woody
feedstocks) are likely to be substantially more valuable than in an area of
predominantly combinable crops on acidic sandy soils and a ‘year round’ wet
climate. In the latter case, biochars with a greater CEC, liming capacity and
possibly a lower mechanical strength (e.g. crop residue feedstock) may be
more in demand.
In Terra Pretas potential feedstocks were limited to wood from the trees and
organic matter from other vegetation. Nowadays any biomass material,
including waste, is considered as a feedstock for biochar production.
Considering that historical sites contain either biochar (Terra Preta) or BC
(from wildfires), chronosequence studies can only give us information about
the long term consequences and dynamics of those limited natural
feedstocks. This implies an important methodological challenge for the study
of the long term dynamics of soils with biochar produced from feedstocks
other than natural vegetation. Even for trees and plants, careful consideration
needs to be given to specific species that bioaccumulate certain metals, or, in
the case of crop residues, that may contain relevant concentrations of
herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, and in the case of animal manures that may
contain antibiotics or their secondary metabolites. See Section 5.1.5 for a
more detailed discussion on the (potential) occurrence of contaminants within
biochar.
In addition, chronosequence studies using historic sites are often poor
predictors of structural disintegration and concomitant chemical reactivity and
mobility of biochars, because they are either not in arable land use, or have
not been subject to the intense physical disturbance of modern arable tillage
and cultivation (e.g. the power harrow).
A detailed description of all biochar feedstocks is beyond the scope of this
report and feedstocks have been reviewed in other works (Collison et al.,
2009; Lehmann and Joseph, 2009). The key point is that the suitability of
each biomass type as a potential source for biochar, is dependent on a
number of chemical, physical, environmental, as well as economic and
logistical factors (Collison et al., 2009), as discussed, where appropriate,
throughout this report. It is important to stress, however, that for any material
to be considered as a feedstock for biochar production, and therefore also for
application to soil, a rigorous procedure needs to be developed in order to
assess the biochar characteristics and long term dynamics in the range of
soil, other environmental conditions, and land use and management factors
that are considered for its application.

48
1.8 Application Strategies
Biochar application strategies have been studied very little, although the way
biochar is applied to soils can have a substantial impact on soil processes and
functioning, including aspects of the behaviour and fate of biochar particles in
soil and the wider environment (Chapter 3) as well as on ‘threats to soil’
(Chapter 4), occupational health and safety (5.2), and economic
considerations (Section 5.4). Broadly speaking there are three main
approaches: i) topsoil incorporation, ii) depth application, and iii) top-dressing.

For topsoil incorporation biochar can be applied on its own or combined with
composts or manures. The degree of mixing will depend on the cultivation
techniques used. In conventional tillage systems the biochar (and
compost/manure/slurry) will generally be mixed more or less homogeneously
throughout the topsoil (in most arable soils from 0-15/30 cm depth). Water
and wind erosion will remove biochar along with other soil material, i.e. that
would erode without biochar additions as well, and possibly more biochar will
be eroded from the surface because of its low density. Potentially, the
application of biochar combined with compost or manure would reduce this
risk, but studies evidencing this are lacking. In conservation tillage systems
the incorporation depth will be reduced (leading to greater biochar
concentrations at equal application rates) and possibly a concentration
gradient decreasing with depth. In no-till systems any incorporation would be
through natural processes (see top-dressing below). Deep mouldboard
ploughing effectively results in (temporary) ‘depth application’ (see below),
with more topsoil homogenisation occurring during subsequent ploughing.

Depth application of biochar has been described mostly as ‘deep-banded’

application (e.g. Blackwell et al., 2007). The placement of the biochar directly
into the rhizosphere is thought to be more beneficial for crop growth and less
susceptible to erosion. The application can be either by pneumatic systems,
which can operate at high rates, or by applying the biochar in furrows or
trenches and subsequently levelling the soil surface. Deep mouldboard
ploughing essentially results in temporary ‘depth application’, although
horizontally continuous (unlike the ‘deep-banded’ application). Subsequent
mouldboard ploughing and cultivation will then further homogenise the biochar
distribution through the topsoil.

Top-dressing of biochar is the spreading of biochar (dust fraction mostly) to

the soil surface and relying on natural processes for the incorporation of the
biochar into the topsoil. This form of application is being considered mainly for
those situations where mechanical incorporation is not possible, e.g. no-till
systems, forests, and pastures. An obvious drawback is the risk of erosion by
water and wind, as well as human health (inhalation) and impacts on other
ecosystem components (e.g. surface water, leaf surfaces, etc.). It is also
largely unknown what the rates of incorporation would be for different soil-
climate-land use combinations.

The dust fraction of biochar is an issue for all application strategies during the
storaging, handling, and applying phases of the biochar (see Sections 2.2.1
and 5.2 for more detailed information about the properties and implications of

49
biochar’s dust fraction).This aspects needs to be investigated thoroughly
before implementation. Like any trafficking on soil, there is a risk of (sub)soil
compaction during biochar application. This may be particularly the case for
the relatively heavy machinery involved in ‘depth application’.

Both topsoil incorporation and top-dressing can be applied with a range of

frequencies, i.e. a ‘one-off’ application’, every few years, or every year. For
specific effects on soil, e.g. nutrient availability (from a feedstock like poultry
manure) or liming effect, a more frequent application may be more beneficial
to the soil and/or less detrimental to the environment (nitrate leaching).

1.9 Summary
As a concept biochar is defined as ‘charcoal (biomass that has been
pyrolysed in a zero or low oxygen environment) for which, owing to its
inherent properties, scientific consensus exists that application to soil at a
specific site is expected to sustainably sequester carbon and concurrently
improve soil functions (under current and future management), while avoiding
short- and long-term detrimental effects to the wider environment as well as
human and animal health'. Inspiration is derived from the anthropogenically
created Terra Preta soils (Hortic Anthrosols) in Amazonia where charred
organic material plus other (organic and mineral) materials appear to have
been added purposefully to soil to increase its agronomic quality. Ancient
Anthrosols have been found in Europe as well, where organic matter (peat,
manure, ‘plaggen’) was added to soil, but where charcoal additions appear to
have been limited or non-existent. Furthermore, charcoal from wildfires
(pyrogenic black carbon - BC) has been found in many soils around the world,
including European soils where pyrogenic BC can make up a large proportion
of total soil organic carbon.
Biochar can be produced from a wide range of organic feedstocks under
different pyrolysis conditions and at a range of scales. Many different
materials have been proposed as biomass feedstocks for biochar. The
suitability of each biomass type for such an application is dependent on a
number of chemical, physical, environmental, as well as economic and
logistical factors. The original feedstock used, combined with the pyrolysis
conditions will determine the properties, both physical and chemical, of the
biochar product. It is these differences in physicochemical properties that
govern the specific interactions which will occur with the endemic soil biota
upon addition of biochar to soil, and hence how soil dependent ecosystem
functions and services are affected. The application strategy used to apply
biochar to soils is an important factor to consider when evaluating the effects
of biochar on soil properties and processes. Furthermore, the biochar loading
capacity of soils has not been fully quantified, or even developed
conceptually.

50