4.7 Article

Mechanisms of biochar decreasing methane emission from Chinese paddy soils

期刊

SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 46, 期 -, 页码 80-88

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.11.016

关键词

Biochar; CH4 emission; Paddy soil; Methanogenic archaea; Methanotrophic proteobacteria

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41001142]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZCX2-YW-Q1-07]
  3. National Key Technology RD Program [2008BAD95B05, 2009BADC6B04]
  4. Blue Moon Fund, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Paddy fields are one of the largest anthropogenic sources of global CH4 emission. A decrease in paddy CH4 emission can contribute significantly towards the control of global warming. Recent studies have demonstrated that the application of biochar in paddy soils has such a capability, but its underlying mechanism has yet to be elucidated. In this investigation, we studied CH4 emission, methanogenic archaeal, as well as methanotrophic proteobacterial communities, from microcosms derived from two paddy soils, Inceptisol and Ultisol. Both soils were amended with biochar at different pyrolysis temperatures (300 degrees C, 400 degrees C and 500 degrees C) at field condition. The soil CH4 flux was monitored across whole rice season in 2010; the functional guilds communities were analyzed by PCR-DGGE and real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR). It is found that paddy CH4 emissions significantly decreased under biochar amendments, which, interestingly, didn't result from the inhibition of methanogenic archaeal growth. qPCR further revealed that biochar amendments (1) increased methanotrophic proteobacterial abundances significantly, and (2) decreased the ratios of methanogenic to methanotrophic abundances greatly. These results shed insight on the underlying mechanism of how biochar decreases paddy CH4 emission. This knowledge can be applied to develop a more effective greenhouse gas mitigation process for paddy fields. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据