New Forests

, Volume 46, Issue 5–6, pp 931–946 | Cite as

Biochar and forest restoration: a review and meta-analysis of tree growth responses

Article

Abstract

“Biochar”, or charcoal intended for use as a soil amendment, has received great attention in recent years as a means of enhancing carbon sequestration and soil properties in agricultural systems. Here we address the potential for biochar use in the context of forest restoration, reviewing relevant experimental studies on biochar use in forest ecosystems, the properties of chars generated from wood waste material, and available data on tree growth responses to biochar. To our knowledge the earliest mention of char use as a soil amendment is actually specifically in the context of forest restoration (in the 1820s in Scotland). Wood waste biochars have an unusual set of properties that suggest their applicability in a forest restoration context: namely, high recalcitrance promoting long-lasting effects, retention of cations, anions, and water, in the soil, sorptive properties that can reduce bioavailability of a wide range of toxic materials, and relative ease of production from locally available feedstocks. A meta-analysis of recent studies on biochar responses of woody plants indicates a potential for large tree growth responses to biochar additions, with a mean 41 % increase in biomass. Responses are especially pronounced at early growth stages, and appear to be higher in boreal and tropical than in temperate systems, and in angiosperms than conifers; however, there is high variability, and field studies are few. The properties of biochars also vary greatly depending on feedstock and pyrolysis conditions; while this complicates their use, it provides a means to design biochars for specific restoration situations and objectives. We conclude that there is great promise for biochar to play an important role in a wide variety of forest restoration efforts, specifically as a replacement product for other forms of organic matter and liming agents.

Keywords

Biochar Charcoal Feedstock Forest restoration Pyrolysis Soil carbon 

References

  1. Atkinson CJ, Fitzgerald JD, Hipps NA (2010) Potential mechanisms for achieving agricultural benefits from biochar application to temperate soils: a review. Plant Soil 337:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker LL, Strawn DG, Rember WC, Sprenke KF (2011) Metal content of charcoal in mining-impacted wetland sediments. Sci Total Environ 409:588–594Google Scholar
  3. Bastos AC, Prodana M, Abrantes N, Keizer JJ, Soares AMVM, Loureiro S (2014) Potential risk of biochar-amended soil to aquatic systems: an evaluation based on aquatic bioassays. Ecotoxicology 23:1784–1793CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beesley L, Moreno-Jimenez E, Gomez-Eyles JL (2010) Effects of biochar and greenwaste compost amendments on mobility, bioavailability, and toxicity of inorganic and organic contaminants in a multi-element polluted soil. Environ Pollut 158:2282–2287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Beesley L, Moreno-Jimenez E, Gomez-Eyles JL, Harris E, Robinson B, Sizmur T (2011) A review of biochars’ potential role in the remediation, revegetation and restoration of contaminated soils. Environ Pollut 159:3269–3282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Beesley L, Inneh OS, Norton GJ, Moreno-Jimenez E, Pardo T, Clemente R, Dawson JJ (2014)  Assessing the influence of compost and biochar amendments on the mobility and toxicity of metals and arsenic in a naturally contaminated mine soil. Environ Pollut 186:195–202Google Scholar
  7. Bernal MP, Sanchez-Monedero MA, Paredes C, Roig A (1998) Carbon mineralization from organic wastes at different composting stages during their incubation with soil. Agric Ecosys Environ 69:175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biederman LA, Harpole WS (2013) Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: a meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy 5:202–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blackmore AC, Mentis MT, Scholes RJ (1990) The origin and extent of nutrient-enriched patches within a nutrient-poor savannah in South Africa. J Biogeogr 17:463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolan NS, Kunhikrishnan A, Choppala GK, Thangarajan R, Chung JW (2012) Stabilization of carbon in composts and biochars in relation to carbon sequestration and soil fertility. Sci Total Environ 424:264–270Google Scholar
  11. Borchard N, Prost K, Kautz T, Moeller A, Siemens J (2012) Sorption of copper (II) and sulphate to different biochars before and after composting with farmyard manure. Eur J Soil Sci 63:399–409Google Scholar
  12. Brais S, David P, Ouimet R (2000) Impacts of wild fire severity and salvage harvesting on the nutrient balance of jack pine and black spruce boreal stands. For Ecol Manage 137:231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brewer CE, Unger R, Schmidt-Rohr K, Brown RC (2011) Criteria to select biochars for field studies based on biochar chemical properties. Bioenergy Res 4:312–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Budi SW, Setyaningsih L (2013) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and biochar improved early growth of Neem (Melia azedarach Linn.) seedling under Greenhouse conditions. Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika 19:103–110Google Scholar
  15. Buss W, Kammann C, Koyro HW (2011) Biochar reduces copper toxicity in Chenopodium quinoa Willd. in a sandy soil. J Env Qual 40:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Busscher W, Novak J, Ahmedna M (2003) Biochar addition to a southeastern USA coastal sand to decrease soil strength and improve soil quality. Proceedings of the ISTRO 18th triennial conference. Izmir, Turkey, pp 15–19Google Scholar
  17. Chidumayo EN (1994) Effects of wood carbonization on soil and initial development of seedlings in miombo woodland, Zambia. For Ecol Manage 70:353–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coomes DA, Allen RB, Bentley WA, Burrows LE, Canham CD, Fagan L, Forsyth DM, Gaxiola-Alcantar A, Parfitt RL, Ruscoe WA, Wardle DA, Wilson DJ, Wright EF (2005) The hare, the tortoise and the crocodile: the ecology of angiosperm dominance, conifer persistence and fern filtering. J Ecol 93:918–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Core Team R (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Austria, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  20. Crane-Droesch A, Abiven S, Jeffery S, Torn MS (2013) Heterogeneous global crop yield response to biochar: a meta-regression analysis. Environ Res Lett 8:044049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DeLuca T, MacKenzie MD, Gundale MJ, Holben WE (2006) Wildfire-produced charcoal directly influences nitrogen cycling in ponderosa pine forests. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:448–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Enders A, Hanley K, Whitman T, Joseph S, Lehmann J (2012) Characterization of biochars to evaluate recalcitrance and agronomic performance. Biores Technol 114:644–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eyles A, Bound S, Oliver G, Paterson S, Direen J, Corkrey R, Hardie M, Green S, Clothier B, Close D (2013) Does biochar improve apple productivity? Aust Fruitgrower 2013:32–34Google Scholar
  24. Fagbenro JA, Oshunsanya SO, Onawumi OA (2013) Effect of saw dust biochar and NPK 15:15:15 inorganic fertilizer on Moringa oleifera seedlings grown in an oxisol. Agrosearch 13:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fairhead J, Leach M (2009) Amazonian dark earths in Africa? In: Woods WI, Teixeira WG, Lehmann J, Steiner C, WinklerPrins AMGA, Rebellato L (eds) Amazonian dark earths: Wim Sombroek’s vision. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 265–278Google Scholar
  26. Ghosh S, Ow LF, Wilson B (2015) Influence of biochar and compost on soil properties and tree growth in a tropical urban environment. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12:1303–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glaser B, Birk JJ (2012) State of the scientific knowledge on properties and genesis of anthropogenic dark earths in Central Amazonia (terra preta de Índio). Geochim et Cosmochim Acta 82:39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glaser B, Haumaier L, Guggenberger G, Zech W (2001) The ‘Terra Preta’ phenomenon: a model for sustainable agriculture in the humid tropics. Naturwissenschaften 88:37–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gradowski T, Thomas SC (2006) Phosphorus limitation of sugar maple growth in central Ontario. For Ecol Manage 226:104–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gradowski T, Thomas SC (2008) Responses of Acer saccharum canopy trees and saplings to P, K and lime additions under high N deposition. Tree Physiol 28:173–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Graham E (2006) A Neotropical framework for terra preta. In: Balee W, Erickson CL (eds) Time and complexity in historical ecology—studies in the neotropical lowlands. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 57–86Google Scholar
  32. Gurevitch J, Curtis PS, Jones MH (2001) Meta-analysis in ecology. Adv Ecol Res 32:199–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hart S, Luckai N (2013) Charcoal function and management in boreal ecosystems. J Appl Ecol 50:1197–1206Google Scholar
  34. Headlee WL, Brewer CE, Hall RB (2014) Biochar as a substitute for vermiculite in potting mix for hybrid poplar. Bioenergy Res 7:120–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hecht SB (2003) Indigenous soil management and the creation of Amazonian Dark Earths: implications of the Kayapó practices. In: Lehmann J et al (eds) Amazonian dark earths: origin, properties, management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dodrecht, pp 355–372Google Scholar
  36. Heckenberger MJ, Kuikuro A, Kuikuro UT, Russell CJ, Schmidt M, Fausto C, Franchetto B (2003) Amazonia 1492: pristine forest or cultural parkland? Science 301:1710–1713CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Heiskanen J, Tammeorg P, Dumroese RK (2013) Growth of Norway spruce seedlings after transplanting into silty soil amended with biochar: a bioassay in a growth chamber—short communication. J For Sci 59:125–129Google Scholar
  38. International Biochar Initiative (2014) Standardized product definition and product testing guidelines for biochar that is used in soil, version 2.0. http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/IBI_Biochar_Standards_V2%200_final_2014.pdf (accessed 4 Apr 2015)
  39. Jauss V, Johnson M, Krull E, Daub M, Lehmann J (2015) Pyrogenic carbon controls across a soil catena in the Pacific Northwest. Catena 124:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jeffery S, Verheijen FGA, Van Der Velde M, Bastos AC (2011) A quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agric Ecosys Environ 144:175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Joseph SD, Camps-Arbestain M, Lin Y, Munroe P, Chia CH, Hook J, van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Cowie A, Singh BP, Lehmann J, Foidl N, Smernik RJ, Amonette JE (2010) An investigation into the reactions of biochar in soil. Aust J Soil Res 48:501–515Google Scholar
  42. Kloss S, Zehetner F, Dellantonio A, Hamid R, Ottner F, Liedtke V, Schwanninger M, Gerzabek M, Soja G (2012) Characterization of slow pyrolysis biochars: effects of feedstocks and pyrolysis temperature on biochar properties. J Env Qual 41:990–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kołtowski M, Oleszczuk P (2015) Toxicity of biochars after polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons removal by thermal treatment. Ecol Engin 75:79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krull E, Lehmann J, Skjemstad J (2008) The global extent of black C in soils: is it everywhere? In: Schröder HG (ed) Grasslands: ecology, management and restoration. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 13–17Google Scholar
  45. Kuhlbusch T, Andreae MO, Cachier H, Goldammer JG, Lacaux JP, Shea R, Crutzen PJ (1996) Black carbon formation by savanna fires: measurements and implications for the global carbon cycle. J Geophys Res Atm 101:23651–23665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Laird DA, Fleming P, Davis D, Horton R, Wang B, Karlen DL (2010) Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma 158:443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lehmann J (2007a) A handful of carbon. Nature 447:143–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Lehmann J (2007b) Bio-energy in the black. Front Ecol Environ 5:381–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lehmann J,  Joseph S (eds) (2009) Biochar for environmental management: science and technology. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Liu X, Zhang A, Ji C, Joseph S, Bian R, Li L, Pan G, Paz-Ferreiro J (2013) Biochar’s effect on crop productivity and the dependence on experimental conditions—a meta-analysis of literature data. Plant Soil 373:583–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lusk CH (2011) Conifer-angiosperm interactions: physiological ecology and life history. In: Turner BL, Cernusak LA (eds) Ecology of tropical podocarps. Smithsonian Institution Press, Smithsonian Contributions to Botany, Washington, DC, pp 157–164Google Scholar
  52. Major J, Rondon M, Molina D, Riha SJ, Lehmann J (2010) Maize yield and nutrition during 4 years after biochar application to a Colombian savanna oxisol. Plant Soil 333:117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Makoto K, Makoto K, Tamai Y, Kim YS, Koike T (2010) Buried charcoal layer and ectomycorrhizae cooperatively promote the growth of Larix gmelinii seedlings. Plant Soil 327:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mao JD, Mao JD, Johnson RL, Lehmann J, Olk DC, Neves EG, Thompson ML, Schmidt-Rohr K (2012) Abundant and stable char residues in soils: implications for soil fertility and carbon sequestration. Env Sci Technol 46:9571–9576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Marks EA, Mattana S, Alcañiz JM, Domene X (2014) Biochars provoke diverse soil mesofauna reproductive responses in laboratory bioassays. Eur J Soil Biol 60:104–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Matthew P (1831) On naval timber and arboriculture: with critical notes on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting. Adam Black, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  57. McElligott KM (2011) Biochar amendments to forest soils: effects on soil properties and tree growth. MSc Thesis, University of Idaho. p. 94Google Scholar
  58. McKendry P (2002) Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass. Biores Technol 83:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Monteath R (1824) The forester’s guide and profitable planter, 2nd edn. Stirling and Kenney, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  60. Neves EG, Petersen JB, Bartone RN, Da Silva CA (2003) Historical and socio-cultural origins of Amazonian Dark Earths. In: Lehmann J et al (eds) Amazonian dark earths: origin, properties, management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dodrecht, pp 29–50Google Scholar
  61. Novak JM, Lima I, Xing B, Gaskin JW, Steiner C, Das KC, Ahmedna M, Rehrah D, Watts DW, Busscher WJ, Schomberg H (2009) Characterization of designer biochar produced at different temperatures and their effects on a loamy sand. Ann Environ Sci 3:195–206Google Scholar
  62. Omil B, Piñero V, Merino A (2013) Soil and tree responses to the application of wood ash containing charcoal in two soils with contrasting properties. For Ecol Manage 295:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pettersen RC (1984) The chemical composition of wood. In: Rowell RM (ed) The chemistry of solid wood. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 57–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pluchon N, Gundale MJ, Nilsson M-C, Kardol P, Wardle DA (2014) Stimulation of boreal tree seedling growth by wood-derived charcoal: effects of charcoal properties, seedling species and soil fertility. Func Ecol 28:766–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rajkovich S, Enders A, Hanley K, Hyland C, Zimmerman AR, Lehmann J (2012) Corn growth and nitrogen nutrition after additions of biochars with varying properties to a temperate soil. Biol Fert Soils 48:271–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reverchon F, Yang H, Ho TY, Yan G, Wang J, Xu Z, Chen C, Zhang D (2014) A preliminary assessment of the potential of using an acacia-biochar system for spent mine site rehabilitation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:2138–2144Google Scholar
  67. Robertson SJ et al (2012) Biochar enhances seedling growth and alters root symbioses and properties of sub-boreal forest soils. Can J Soil Sci 92:329–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ronsse F, Van Hecke S, Dickinson D, Prins W (2013) Production and characterization of slow pyrolysis biochar: influence of feedstock type and pyrolysis conditions. GCB Bioenergy 5:104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sackett TE, Basiliko N, Noyce GL, Winsborough C, Schurman J, Ikeda C, Thomas SC (2014) Soil and greenhouse gas responses to biochar in a north temperate forest. GCB Bioenergy. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12211 Google Scholar
  70. Scharenbroch BC, Meza EN, Catania M, Fite K (2013) Biochar and biosolids increase tree growth and improve soil quality for urban landscapes. J Env Qual 42:1372–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schmidt MJ, Heckenberger MJ (2009) Amerindian Anthrosols: Amazonian Dark Earth formation in the upper Xingu. In: Woods WI (ed) Amazonian dark earths: wim sombroek’s vision. Springer, Berlin, pp 163–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schulz H, Glaser B (2012) Effects of biochar compared to organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil quality and plant growth in a greenhouse experiment. J Pl Nut Soil Sci 175:410–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sheil D, Basuki I, German L, Kuyper TW, Limberg G, Puri RK, Sellato B, van Noordwiji M, Wollenberg E (2012) Do anthropogenic dark earths occur in the interior of Borneo? Some initial observations from East Kalimantan. Forests 3:207–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Siregar CA (2007) Effect of charcoal application in the early growth stage of Acacia mangium and Michelia montana. J For Res 4:119–130Google Scholar
  75. Sovu MT, Savadogo P, Oden PC (2012) Facilitation of forest landscape restoration on abandoned swidden fallows in Laos using mixed-species planting and biochar application. Silva Fenn 46:39–51Google Scholar
  76. Spokas KA (2010) Review of the stability of biochar in soils: predictability of O: C molar ratios. Carbon Manage 1:289–303Google Scholar
  77. Spokas KA, Cantrell KB, Novak JM, Dw Archer, Ippolito JA, Collins HP, Boateng AA, Lima IM, Lamb MC, McAloon AJ, Lentz RD, Nichols KAS (2012) Biochar: a synthesis of its agronomic impact beyond carbon sequestration. J Env Qual 41:973–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stavi I (2013) Biochar use in forestry and tree-based agro-ecosystems for increasing climate change mitigation and adaptation. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 20:166–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sutton M (2014) Nullius in verba: Darwin’s greatest secret. Thinker MediaGoogle Scholar
  80. Thomas SC (2013). Biochar and its potential in Canadian forestry. Silviculture Mag, January 2013, 4–6Google Scholar
  81. Thomas SC, Jasienski M, Bazzaz FA (1999) Early vs. asymptotic growth responses of herbaceous plants to elevated CO2. Ecology 80:1552–1567Google Scholar
  82. Thomas SC, Frye S, Gale N, Garmon M, Launchbury R, Machado N, Melamed S, Murray J, Petroff A, Winsborough C (2013) Biochar mitigates negative effects of salt additions on two herbaceous plant species. J Env Manage 129:62–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Vitousek PM (1984) Litterfall, nutrient cycling, and nutrient limitation in tropical forests. Ecology 65:285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wardle DA, Zackrisson O, Nilsson MC (1998) The charcoal effect in boreal forests: mechanisms and ecological consequences. Oecologia 115:419–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. West TO, McBride AC (2005) The contribution of agricultural lime to carbon dioxide emissions in the United States: dissolution, transport, and net emissions. Agric Ecosys Environ 108:145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wilson K (2013) Justus Von Liebig and the birth of modern biochar. Ithaka J, Aug. 2013. www.ithaka-journal.net/english-justus-von-liebig-and-the-birth-of-modern-biochar
  87. Wong MH (2003) Ecological restoration of mine degraded soils, with emphasis on metal contaminated soils. Chemosphere 50:775–780CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, Lehmann J, Joseph S (2010) Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature Comm 1:56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Yang H, Yan R, Chen H, Lee DH, Zheng C (2007) Characteristics of hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin pyrolysis. Fuel 86:1781–1788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Yu XY, Ying GG, Kookana RS (2009) Reduced plant uptake of pesticides with biochar additions to soil. Chemosphere 76:665–671CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Zackrisson O, Nilsson MC, Wardle DA (1996) Key ecological function of charcoal from wildfire in the Boreal forest. Oikos 77:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Zon R (1913) Darwinism in forestry. Am Nat 47:540–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ForestryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations