Opportunities and Uses of Biochar on Forest Sites in North America

Page‐Dumroese, Deborah S.; Coleman, Mark D.; Thomas, Sean C.; Bruckman, Viktor J.; Apaydın-Varol, Esin; Uzun, Başak Burcu; Liu, Jay

doi:10.1017/9781316337974.016

Cited by 29 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Biochar amended soil may not increase tree growth because without biochar, these soils already support a high level of biomass production associated with adequate soil moisture retention during dry seasons. We expected biochar to alter soil water‐holding capacity and result in higher seasonal soil moisture (Page‐Dumroese et al ., ), but we could not detect any differences in soil moisture (Figs S5 and S6). This may be due to the low quantity of biochar added, the nature of the soil, or other factors not yet identified.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

Idaho forest growth response to post‐thinning energy biomass removal and complementary soil amendments

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Utilization of woody biomass for biofuel can help meet the need for renewable energy production. However, there is a concern biomass removal will deplete soil nutrients, having short-and long-term effects on tree growth. This study aimed to develop short-term indicators to assess the impacts of the first three years after small-diameter woody biomass removal on forest productivity to establish optimal biomass retention levels for mixed-conifer forests in the Inland Northwest region, and to evaluate the ability of soil amendments to compensate for potential adverse effects from biomass removal. We examined impacts of four biomass retention-level treatments at two study locations: full biomass removal (0x), full biomass retention (1x), double biomass retention (2x), and unthinned control. We combined biomass retention with four soil amendment treatments: biochar (B), fertilizer (F), fertilizer and biochar combined (FB), and an untreated control (C). We considered treatment effects on basal area and total stem volume growth for all trees per plot (plot trees) and for the six largest trees per plot (crop trees). Biomass removal had no effect on plot (P > 0.40) or crop tree growth (P > 0.65) compared to normal biomass retention. High biomass retention (2x) decreased plot tree growth as compared to normal biomass retention (1x) levels (P < 0.05) after three years. This growth difference was not explained by soil moisture, temperature, or nutrient uptake. While there were strong tree growth differences between study locations, patterns of biomass and amendment treatment responses did not differ. Fertilizer increased basal area growth and total volume growth (P < 0.10) as expected, because nitrogen is limiting in the region. Biochar had no effect on tree growth (P > 0.47). Initial findings after three years suggest removing small-diameter biomass for biofuel feedstocks is feasible in the Inland Northwest without negative impacts on tree growth.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

Idaho forest growth response to post‐thinning energy biomass removal and complementary soil amendments

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mixing biochar into the soil surface can increase water holding capacity (Mukherjee & Lal, ), which can affect CH 4 uptake (Le Mer & Roger, ). We applied biochar to the soil surface because it is not practical to incorporate biochar into forest soil (Page‐Dumroese, Coleman et al, ) and such disturbance is not desirable. When our GHG sampling occurred, the biochar was still at the soil surface, although it was beginning to mix into the soil profile.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seedling growth rates are higher in boreal forests and for angiosperms compared to temperate forests and conifers (Thomas & Gale, ), but there is high variability of plant growth responses to biochar applications in general (Spokas et al, ). There is a need for long‐term field trials to investigate biochar's effects on forests because responses from short‐term laboratory or greenhouse studies are not always comparable to field responses (Page‐Dumroese, Coleman, & Thomas, ). Thus, the objective of this study was to examine the longer‐term effects of biochar as a soil amendment on soil GHG emissions, soil C content, and tree growth in temperate, mixed‐conifer forests in the western USA to test if biochar can be harmlessly used to mitigate climate change.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil greenhouse gas, carbon content, and tree growth response to biochar amendment in western United States forests

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restoring overstocked forests by thinning and pyrolyzing residual biomass produces biochar and other value‐added products. Forest soils amended with biochar have potential to sequester carbon (C), improve soil quality, and alter greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions without depleting nutrient stocks. Yet, few studies have examined the effects of biochar on GHG emissions and tree growth in temperate forest soils. We measured GHG emissions, soil C content, and tree growth at managed forest sites in Idaho, Montana, and Oregon. We applied biochar amendments of 0, 2.5, or 25 Mg/ha to the forest soil surface. Flux of carbon dioxide and methane varied by season; however, neither were affected by biochar amendment. Flux of nitrous oxide was not detected at these nitrogen‐limited and unfertilized forest sites. Biochar amendment increased soil C content by 41% but did not affect tree growth. Overall, biochar had no detrimental effects on forest trees or soils. We conclude that biochar can be used harmlessly for climate change mitigation in forests by sequestering C in the soil.

show abstract

“…The response of exoenzyme activity to biochar also depends on soil series, biochar type, amendment rate, season, and exoenzyme assayed (Awad et al, ; Bailey et al, ; Demisie et al, ; Ouyang et al, ; Page‐Dumroese et al, ; Smith, ). Biochar is highly porous and has been shown to alter soil water‐holding capacity, increasing seasonal soil moisture (Lehmann et al, ; Page‐Dumroese et al, ), which can impact R s rates. However, our study locations have ash‐laden soils.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The aromatic hydrocarbon in biochar is resistant to decomposition when added as a soil amendment (Spokas, ; Wang, Xiong, & Kuzyakov, ) so that it directly enters the stabilized soil C pools (Fang, Singh, Singh, & Krull, ; Wang, Chen, Wang, Zhang, & Zhang, ) and will therefore sequester C in the soil with long‐term effects on soil properties. At forest sites, biochar can increase ground cover after disturbance, increase soil moisture, and decrease soil compaction associated with harvesting (Page‐Dumroese, Coleman, & Thomas, ). For laboratory incubation studies, biochar decreases (Spokas, Koskinen, Baker, & Reicosky, ) or increases (Stewart, Zheng, Botte, & Cotrufo, ; Zheng, Stewart, & Cotrufo, ) CO 2 emissions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest soil respiration and exoenzyme activity in western North America following thinning, residue removal for biofuel production, and compensatory soil amendments

Sherman

Coleman

2020

GCB Bioenergy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cellulosic biofuel from forest thinning operations is a potential renewable energy source in regions with overstocked forests such as those in western United States. However, it is possible that biomass removal can deplete nutrients from soil, which can alter soil respiration (Rs) and exoenzyme properties, and potentially impact tree growth. This study evaluates the impact of biomass removal on Rs and exoenzyme properties and the capacity of soil amendments to counteract any potential effects. At two study locations, we created four post‐thinning biomass retention levels: full biomass removal (0×), full biomass retention (1×), double biomass retention (2×), and a no‐thin treatment. Four soil amendment treatments were applied to each biomass retention level: N fertilizer (F), biochar (B), fertilizer plus biochar (FB), and an untreated control (C). We evaluated treatment effects on Rs and activity of four exoenzymes to represent C‐cycling, N‐release, and P‐release processes. Biomass retention levels had no effect on Rs (p = .42) or exoenzyme activities (p > .29). Variation in exoenzyme activity was explained by location, season, soil organic matter, soil moisture content, and temperature. Variation in Rs was explained by the same variables, in addition to C‐cycling exoenzyme activity and soil pH. Soil amendments had no effect on exoenzyme activities (p > .49), and no main effect on Rs (p = .48), though amendments influenced Rs differently at each location (p = .02). Short‐term findings suggest small‐diameter biomass removal for cellulosic biofuel production will not impact Rs and exoenzyme properties, and paired with our tree growth study, provide evidence that biofuel systems are a feasible renewable energy source in the western North America.

show abstract

Opportunities and Uses of Biochar on Forest Sites in North America

Cited by 29 publications

References 83 publications

Idaho forest growth response to post‐thinning energy biomass removal and complementary soil amendments

Idaho forest growth response to post‐thinning energy biomass removal and complementary soil amendments

Soil greenhouse gas, carbon content, and tree growth response to biochar amendment in western United States forests

Forest soil respiration and exoenzyme activity in western North America following thinning, residue removal for biofuel production, and compensatory soil amendments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About