施用生物炭后土壤有机碳的量化:如何避免重复计算 CDR 的(风险)?

IF 3.3 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Frontiers in Climate Pub Date : 2024-04-04 DOI:10.3389/fclim.2024.1343516
Dilani Rathnayake, Hans-Peter Schmidt, Jens Leifeld, Diane Bürge, T. Bucheli, N. Hagemann
{"title":"施用生物炭后土壤有机碳的量化:如何避免重复计算 CDR 的(风险)?","authors":"Dilani Rathnayake, Hans-Peter Schmidt, Jens Leifeld, Diane Bürge, T. Bucheli, N. Hagemann","doi":"10.3389/fclim.2024.1343516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Pyrogenic carbon capture and storage (PyCCS), which comprises the production of biomass, its pyrolysis, and the non-oxidative use of the biochar to create carbon sinks, has been identified as a promising negative emission technology with co-benefits by improving soil properties. Using biochar as a soil additive becomes increasingly common as farmers seek methods for soil improvement and climate change adaptation. Concurrently, there is growing interest in quantifying soil organic carbon (SOC) at the level of individual plots to remunerate farmers for their good agricultural practices and the resulting (temporary) carbon dioxide removal (CDR). However, methods currently applied in routine analysis quantify SOC, irrespective of its speciation or origin, and do not allow to distinguish biochar-C from SOC. As certification of PyCCS-derived CDR is already established using another quantification method (i.e., analysis of biochar-C content, tracking and registration of its application, and offsetting of carbon expenditures caused by the PyCCS process), the analysis of biochar-C as part of SOC may result in double counting of CDR. Hence, the objectives of this review are (1) to compare the physicochemical properties and the quantities of biochar and SOC fractions on a global and field/site-specific scale, (2) to evaluate the established methods of SOC and pyrogenic carbon (PyC) quantification with regard to their suitability in routine analysis, and (3) to assess whether double counting of SOC and biochar C-sinks can be avoided via analytical techniques. The methods that were found to have the potential to distinguish between non-pyrogenic and PyC in soil are either not fit for routine analysis or require calibration for different soil types, which is extremely laborious and yet to be established at a commercial scale. Moreover, the omnipresence of non-biochar PyC in soils (i.e., from forest fires or soot) that is indistinguishable from biochar-C is an additional challenge that can hardly be solved analytically. This review highlights the risks and limits of only result-based schemes for SOC certification relying on soil sampling and analysis. Carbon sink registers that unite the (spatial) data of biochar application and other forms of land-based CDR are suggested to track biochar applications and to effectively avoid double counting.","PeriodicalId":33632,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Climate","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantifying soil organic carbon after biochar application: how to avoid (the risk of) counting CDR twice?\",\"authors\":\"Dilani Rathnayake, Hans-Peter Schmidt, Jens Leifeld, Diane Bürge, T. Bucheli, N. Hagemann\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fclim.2024.1343516\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Pyrogenic carbon capture and storage (PyCCS), which comprises the production of biomass, its pyrolysis, and the non-oxidative use of the biochar to create carbon sinks, has been identified as a promising negative emission technology with co-benefits by improving soil properties. Using biochar as a soil additive becomes increasingly common as farmers seek methods for soil improvement and climate change adaptation. Concurrently, there is growing interest in quantifying soil organic carbon (SOC) at the level of individual plots to remunerate farmers for their good agricultural practices and the resulting (temporary) carbon dioxide removal (CDR). However, methods currently applied in routine analysis quantify SOC, irrespective of its speciation or origin, and do not allow to distinguish biochar-C from SOC. As certification of PyCCS-derived CDR is already established using another quantification method (i.e., analysis of biochar-C content, tracking and registration of its application, and offsetting of carbon expenditures caused by the PyCCS process), the analysis of biochar-C as part of SOC may result in double counting of CDR. Hence, the objectives of this review are (1) to compare the physicochemical properties and the quantities of biochar and SOC fractions on a global and field/site-specific scale, (2) to evaluate the established methods of SOC and pyrogenic carbon (PyC) quantification with regard to their suitability in routine analysis, and (3) to assess whether double counting of SOC and biochar C-sinks can be avoided via analytical techniques. The methods that were found to have the potential to distinguish between non-pyrogenic and PyC in soil are either not fit for routine analysis or require calibration for different soil types, which is extremely laborious and yet to be established at a commercial scale. Moreover, the omnipresence of non-biochar PyC in soils (i.e., from forest fires or soot) that is indistinguishable from biochar-C is an additional challenge that can hardly be solved analytically. This review highlights the risks and limits of only result-based schemes for SOC certification relying on soil sampling and analysis. Carbon sink registers that unite the (spatial) data of biochar application and other forms of land-based CDR are suggested to track biochar applications and to effectively avoid double counting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33632,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Climate\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Climate\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2024.1343516\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Climate","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2024.1343516","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

热解碳捕集与封存(PyCCS)包括生物质的生产、热解以及生物炭的非氧化利用,以形成碳汇。随着农民寻求改良土壤和适应气候变化的方法,使用生物炭作为土壤添加剂变得越来越普遍。与此同时,人们对在单个地块层面量化土壤有机碳(SOC)以补偿农民的良好农业实践和由此产生的(临时)二氧化碳去除量(CDR)的兴趣也日益浓厚。然而,目前用于常规分析的方法是对 SOC 进行量化,而不考虑其种类或来源,因此无法将生物炭-C 与 SOC 区分开来。由于 PyCCS 衍生 CDR 的认证已采用另一种量化方法(即分析生物炭-C 含量、跟踪和登记其应用,以及抵消 PyCCS 过程造成的碳支出),因此将生物炭-C 作为 SOC 的一部分进行分析可能会导致 CDR 的重复计算。因此,本综述的目的是:(1)比较全球和实地/现场范围内生物炭和 SOC 馏分的理化性质和数量;(2)评估 SOC 和热解碳(PyC)量化的既定方法在常规分析中的适用性;(3)评估是否可以通过分析技术避免 SOC 和生物炭 C-汇的重复计算。研究发现,有可能区分土壤中非热解碳和热解碳的方法要么不适合常规分析,要么需要针对不同的土壤类型进行校准,而校准工作极其费力,且尚未形成商业规模。此外,土壤中无处不在的非生物炭 PyC(即来自森林火灾或烟尘的 PyC)与生物炭-C 无法区分,这也是一项难以通过分析解决的挑战。本综述强调了仅以土壤取样和分析为基础的 SOC 认证计划的风险和局限性。建议将生物炭应用的(空间)数据与其他形式的陆地 CDR 数据结合起来,建立碳汇登记册,以跟踪生物炭的应用,有效避免重复计算。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Quantifying soil organic carbon after biochar application: how to avoid (the risk of) counting CDR twice?
Pyrogenic carbon capture and storage (PyCCS), which comprises the production of biomass, its pyrolysis, and the non-oxidative use of the biochar to create carbon sinks, has been identified as a promising negative emission technology with co-benefits by improving soil properties. Using biochar as a soil additive becomes increasingly common as farmers seek methods for soil improvement and climate change adaptation. Concurrently, there is growing interest in quantifying soil organic carbon (SOC) at the level of individual plots to remunerate farmers for their good agricultural practices and the resulting (temporary) carbon dioxide removal (CDR). However, methods currently applied in routine analysis quantify SOC, irrespective of its speciation or origin, and do not allow to distinguish biochar-C from SOC. As certification of PyCCS-derived CDR is already established using another quantification method (i.e., analysis of biochar-C content, tracking and registration of its application, and offsetting of carbon expenditures caused by the PyCCS process), the analysis of biochar-C as part of SOC may result in double counting of CDR. Hence, the objectives of this review are (1) to compare the physicochemical properties and the quantities of biochar and SOC fractions on a global and field/site-specific scale, (2) to evaluate the established methods of SOC and pyrogenic carbon (PyC) quantification with regard to their suitability in routine analysis, and (3) to assess whether double counting of SOC and biochar C-sinks can be avoided via analytical techniques. The methods that were found to have the potential to distinguish between non-pyrogenic and PyC in soil are either not fit for routine analysis or require calibration for different soil types, which is extremely laborious and yet to be established at a commercial scale. Moreover, the omnipresence of non-biochar PyC in soils (i.e., from forest fires or soot) that is indistinguishable from biochar-C is an additional challenge that can hardly be solved analytically. This review highlights the risks and limits of only result-based schemes for SOC certification relying on soil sampling and analysis. Carbon sink registers that unite the (spatial) data of biochar application and other forms of land-based CDR are suggested to track biochar applications and to effectively avoid double counting.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Climate
Frontiers in Climate Environmental Science-Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
233
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Gender vulnerability assessment to inform gender-sensitive adaptation action: a case study in semi-arid areas of Mali Climatology, trends, and future projections of aerosol optical depth over the Middle East and North Africa region in CMIP6 models Projections of the Adriatic wave conditions under climate changes Microbe-mineral interactions within kimberlitic fine residue deposits: impacts on mineral carbonation Socio-economic implications of forest-based biofuels for marine transportation in the Arctic: Sweden as a case study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1