Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSantín, Cristina
Doerr, Stefan H.
Merino, Agustin
Bucheli, Thomas D.
Bryant, Rob
Ascough, Philippa
Gao, Xiaodong
Masiello, Caroline A.
dc.date.accessioned 2017-10-10T21:24:53Z
dc.date.available 2017-10-10T21:24:53Z
dc.date.issued 2017
dc.identifier.citation Santín, Cristina, Doerr, Stefan H., Merino, Agustin, et al.. "Carbon sequestration potential and physicochemical properties differ between wildfire charcoals and slow-pyrolysis biochars." Scientific Reports, 7, (2017) Springer Nature: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10455-2.
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1911/97781
dc.description.abstract Pyrogenic carbon (PyC), produced naturally (wildfire charcoal) and anthropogenically (biochar), is extensively studied due to its importance in several disciplines, including global climate dynamics, agronomy and paleosciences. Charcoal and biochar are commonly used as analogues for each other to infer respective carbon sequestration potentials, production conditions, and environmental roles and fates. The direct comparability of corresponding natural and anthropogenic PyC, however, has never been tested. Here we compared key physicochemical properties (elemental composition, δ13C and PAHs signatures, chemical recalcitrance, density and porosity) and carbon sequestration potentials of PyC materials formed from two identical feedstocks (pine forest floor and wood) under wildfire charring- and slow-pyrolysis conditions. Wildfire charcoals were formed under higher maximum temperatures and oxygen availabilities, but much shorter heating durations than slow-pyrolysis biochars, resulting in differing physicochemical properties. These differences are particularly relevant regarding their respective roles as carbon sinks, as even the wildfire charcoals formed at the highest temperatures had lower carbon sequestration potentials than most slow-pyrolysis biochars. Our results challenge the common notion that natural charcoal and biochar are well suited as proxies for each other, and suggest that biochar’s environmental residence time may be underestimated when based on natural charcoal as a proxy, and vice versa.
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher Springer Nature
dc.rights This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.title Carbon sequestration potential and physicochemical properties differ between wildfire charcoals and slow-pyrolysis biochars
dc.type Journal article
dc.citation.journalTitle Scientific Reports
dc.citation.volumeNumber 7
dc.identifier.digital Carbon_sequestration_potential
dc.type.dcmi Text
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10455-2
dc.identifier.pmcid PMC5594023
dc.identifier.pmid 28894167
dc.type.publication publisher version
dc.citation.articleNumber 11233


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record