[Terrapreta] Press release: limitations on charcoal as a carbonsink

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Ron, et. al,

We were hearing/talking about a story the other day of "pine beetles" and "spruce bark beetles" destroying (killing) 10's of millions of hectares of and billions of tons of trees in the Boreal forest in Canada and Alaska.  You can see pictures of this on lots of sites on the web ... 

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/pine-beetles-climate.php<http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/pine-beetles-climate.php>
http://www.emr.gov.yk.ca/forestry/sprucebeetle.html<http://www.emr.gov.yk.ca/forestry/sprucebeetle.html>

etc.

These trees are dead and decaying fast, on Boreal forest land.  The CO2 emissions potentials are staggering.  I think Max, or Peter said it the other night,  "These 13 million hectares of dead trees in Canada will emit more CO2 per year than 5 times the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning done by all the humans living in Canada!

Any of this dead wood in Boreal forests (from bark beetle infestations) that is turned into charcoal will NOT DECAY, will not be food for microbes (like humus is), nor will it emit CO2 into the atmosphere in something far shorter than our remaining lifetimes, like it will if we leave the dead trees to decay.  Charcoal-in-soil does sequester every ton of charcoal you put into the soil for thousands of years.  We all get this right?!  I think we can stop alarming rates of CO2 emissions from decaying trees by pyrolyizing the dead wood into charcoal.

When Katrina blew into the Gulf coast, some ~302 million trees were knocked over (killed) and are also decaying fast (probably because of the climate there, in Louisiana and Mississippi, decaying much faster than trees above the Arctic Circle).  We ought to turn these into charcoal, too.  Because if we do not, it will surely release more CO2 than if we do nothing.

I don't think we can let it stand, when some media hype says charcoal-in-soil CANNOT sequester carbon.

It is also entirely possible, too, in my opinion, to reduce CO2/CH4 emissions rates from decaying biomass on areas of land.  Charcoal mixed with humus might make humus decay faster, but the charcoal carbon DOES NOT DECAY in anything short of millennia.  Put more charcoal carbon into or onto soil than there is organic carbon containing matter that can decay and then there is absolutely some sequestered carbon in that soil that was not there before.  This is true no matter what soil you put it into.

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ron Larson<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net> 
  To: Laurens Rademakers<mailto:lrademakers at biopact.com> ; terra pretta group<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 12:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Press release: limitations on charcoal as a carbonsink


  Terra Preta list members

  1.  Thanks to Laurens for bringing this to our attention.
  2.  Being a subscriber to Science, I thought it might be helpful to add a bit after reading it on-line before most of us could see it in paper form.
  3.  At numerous sites, the authors buried (back in humus [no mineral soil] to same (humus) locations at 10-12 cm depth) small nylon bags containing 1 gram of different material types - humus, char, and a 50-50 mixture.  
  4.  The results are explained below - the biochar accelerated, rather than retarded C release - which I didn't want to hear.
  5.  Maybe the results are not so bad though - as there was probably (??) no above ground growth to measure.  These tests done in old (??) forests. 
  6.  We on this list are not proposing to use 50-50 mixtures.
  7.  We are not proposing placement in humus - but rather in mineral soils - where presumably the extra bacteria and fungus can help release the needed nutrients.
  8.  There was a positive side on nitrogen absorption (the opposite of release).
  9.  We need more solid research like this.  The authors used this sort of 50-50 mixture because they are expert on the non-linearities of what happens when different types of leaves decompose when together vs separately.
  10.  The press release is more negative on TP/biochar than the article.  Near the middle the article says:"  These results are consistent with charcoal particles serving as foci for adsorption of organic compounds and microbial growth and activity (4, 5), leading to enhanced decomposition rates and mass loss of associated humus. The enhanced microbial activity in the mixture bags may have led to greater mass and C loss through either greater respiration or greater leaching of soluble compounds (9)."
  11.  I am very impressed that this well-respected Swedish forestry research group started these studies so long ago - and hope we can hear more from other such groups.  The news is not as bad as I feared before reading the article. 
  12.  I like the last sentence in the news release: "The effect of biochar on the loss of carbon already in the soil needs to be better understood before it can be effectively applied as a tool to mitigate human-induced increases in carbon-based greenhouse gases. "  No disagreement there.

  Ron

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Laurens Rademakers<mailto:lrademakers at biopact.com> 
    To: terra pretta group<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
    Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 7:19 AM
    Subject: [Terrapreta] Press release: limitations on charcoal as a carbon sink


    Here is the press release about the study that appeared in Science:

    http://www.slu.se/?ID=704&Nyheter_id=8497<http://www.slu.se/?ID=704&Nyheter_id=8497>

    =========================================================

    Limitations of charcoal as an effective carbon sink
    Fire-derived charcoal is thought to be an important carbon sink. However, a SLU paper in Science shows that charcoal promotes soil microbes and causes a large loss of soil carbon.

    There has been greatly increasing attention given to the potential of 'biochar', or charcoal made from biological tissues (e.g., wood) to serve as a long term sink of carbon in the soil. This is because charcoal is carbon-rich and breaks down extremely slowly, persisting in soil for thousands of years. This has led to the suggestion being seriously considered by policy makers worldwide that biochar could be produced in large quantities and stored in soils. This would in turn increase ecosystem carbon sequestration, and thereby counteract human induced increases in carbon-based greenhouse gases and help combat global warming. 
    However, a new study by Professors David Wardle, Marie-Charlotte Nilsson and Olle Zackrisson at SLU, the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, in Umeå, scheduled to appear in this Friday's issue of the prestigious journal Science, suggests that these supposed benefits of biochar may be somewhat overstated. In their study, charcoal was prepared and mixed with forest soil, and left in the soil in each of three contrasting forest stands in northern Sweden for ten years. 

    They found that when charcoal was mixed into humus, there was a substantial increase in soil microorganisms (bacteria and fungi). These microbes carry out decomposition of organic matter (carbon) in the soil, and consistent with this, they found that charcoal caused greatly increased losses of native soil organic matter, and soil carbon, for each of the three forest stands. Much of this lost soil carbon would be released as carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Therefore, while it is true that charcoal represents a long term sink of carbon because of its persistence, this effect is at least partially offset by the capacity of charcoal to greatly promote the loss of that carbon already present in the soil. 

    The study finds that the supposed benefits of biochar in increasing ecosystem carbon storage may be overstated, at least for boreal forest soils. The effect of biochar on the loss of carbon already in the soil needs to be better understood before it can be effectively applied as a tool to mitigate human-induced increases in carbon-based greenhouse gases. 

    For information: 
    Professor David Wardle, Department of forest ecology and management, SLU (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) Umea, Sweden, telephone +46 90 786 84 71, +46 70 658 92 81. 
    E-mail: David.Wardle at svek.slu.se<mailto:David.Wardle at svek.slu.se> 

    Professor Marie-Charlotte Nilsson, Department of forest ecology and management, SLU (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) Umea, Sweden,, telephone +46 90 786 84 40, +46 70 556 66 04. 
    E-mail: Marie-Charlotte.Nilsson at svek.slu.se<mailto:Marie-Charlotte.Nilsson at svek.slu.se> 



    Read more...
    Posted by: Sven-Olov Bylund
    Published by: Sven-Olov Bylund

    ===========================================================

    To make the idea of biochar survive, it will be important to stress that when applied in agricultural systems, the improved biomass yields as a result of biochar applications, might offset the increased emissions from the decomposition of native SOM. 

    Also, it seems like biochar will only really work in soils with low SOM contents (e.g. tropical soils).



----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    _______________________________________________
    Terrapreta mailing list
    Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
    http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
    http://info.bioenergylists.org
  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
  http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080503/1ac4709c/attachment-0001.html