4.7 Article

Effect of particle sizes of biochar on CO2 emissions in a poplar plantation of ancient Yellow River channel, China

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 345, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118721

关键词

CO2 emissions; Biochar; Particle size; Temperate forest; Northern China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the effects of biochar addition on CO2 emissions and highlights the importance of different particle sizes of biochar in adjusting CO2 emissions from forest soil. The results show that fine biochar addition can increase CO2 emissions by improving soil nutrient content and activity of enzymes, but it reduces the bioavailability of dissolved organic carbon.
Forest soil is a vital pool of organic carbon, which is sensitive to management. Biochar addition could change the CO2 emissions from soil, but its effects are still ambiguous. Moreover, the impacts of particle sizes of biochar on CO2 emissions are still unknown. In this study, a series of field experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of biochar addition on CO2 emissions in a poplar plantation (Populus nigra), China. Biochar with two application rates of (10 and 50 t/ha) and three particle sizes (3-1 mm, 1-0.1 mm, and <0.1 mm) was applied into the surface soil (0-10 cm), and the soil without biochar was set as control. The results showed that a high level of fine biochar addition (1-0.1 mm and <0.1 mm) had similar and positive effects on CO2 emissions by increasing the contents of soil ammonium, available phosphorus, easily oxidizable carbon, soil moisture, soil capillary pore, and the activity of beta-glucosidase. However, biochar addition (1-0.1 mm and <0.1 mm) reduced the bioavailability of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), producing a negative relationship between DOC content and CO2 emissions. This investigation highlights the importance of biochar with different particle sizes in adjusting CO2 emissions from temperate soils.

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