Cargando…

Carbon sequestration potential and physicochemical properties differ between wildfire charcoals and slow-pyrolysis biochars

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 in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Santín, Cristina, Doerr, Stefan H., Merino, Agustin, Bucheli, Thomas D., Bryant, Rob, Ascough, Philippa, Gao, Xiaodong, Masiello, Caroline A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5594023/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28894167
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10455-2
_version_ 1783263145294299136
author Santín, Cristina
Doerr, Stefan H.
Merino, Agustin
Bucheli, Thomas D.
Bryant, Rob
Ascough, Philippa
Gao, Xiaodong
Masiello, Caroline A.
author_facet Santín, Cristina
Doerr, Stefan H.
Merino, Agustin
Bucheli, Thomas D.
Bryant, Rob
Ascough, Philippa
Gao, Xiaodong
Masiello, Caroline A.
author_sort Santín, Cristina
collection PubMed
description 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, δ(13)C 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5594023
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55940232017-09-14 Carbon sequestration potential and physicochemical properties differ between wildfire charcoals and slow-pyrolysis biochars Santín, Cristina Doerr, Stefan H. Merino, Agustin Bucheli, Thomas D. Bryant, Rob Ascough, Philippa Gao, Xiaodong Masiello, Caroline A. Sci Rep Article 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, δ(13)C 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. Nature Publishing Group UK 2017-09-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5594023/ /pubmed/28894167 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10455-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open Access 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. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Santín, Cristina
Doerr, Stefan H.
Merino, Agustin
Bucheli, Thomas D.
Bryant, Rob
Ascough, Philippa
Gao, Xiaodong
Masiello, Caroline A.
Carbon sequestration potential and physicochemical properties differ between wildfire charcoals and slow-pyrolysis biochars
title Carbon sequestration potential and physicochemical properties differ between wildfire charcoals and slow-pyrolysis biochars
title_full Carbon sequestration potential and physicochemical properties differ between wildfire charcoals and slow-pyrolysis biochars
title_fullStr Carbon sequestration potential and physicochemical properties differ between wildfire charcoals and slow-pyrolysis biochars
title_full_unstemmed Carbon sequestration potential and physicochemical properties differ between wildfire charcoals and slow-pyrolysis biochars
title_short Carbon sequestration potential and physicochemical properties differ between wildfire charcoals and slow-pyrolysis biochars
title_sort carbon sequestration potential and physicochemical properties differ between wildfire charcoals and slow-pyrolysis biochars
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5594023/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28894167
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10455-2
work_keys_str_mv AT santincristina carbonsequestrationpotentialandphysicochemicalpropertiesdifferbetweenwildfirecharcoalsandslowpyrolysisbiochars
AT doerrstefanh carbonsequestrationpotentialandphysicochemicalpropertiesdifferbetweenwildfirecharcoalsandslowpyrolysisbiochars
AT merinoagustin carbonsequestrationpotentialandphysicochemicalpropertiesdifferbetweenwildfirecharcoalsandslowpyrolysisbiochars
AT buchelithomasd carbonsequestrationpotentialandphysicochemicalpropertiesdifferbetweenwildfirecharcoalsandslowpyrolysisbiochars
AT bryantrob carbonsequestrationpotentialandphysicochemicalpropertiesdifferbetweenwildfirecharcoalsandslowpyrolysisbiochars
AT ascoughphilippa carbonsequestrationpotentialandphysicochemicalpropertiesdifferbetweenwildfirecharcoalsandslowpyrolysisbiochars
AT gaoxiaodong carbonsequestrationpotentialandphysicochemicalpropertiesdifferbetweenwildfirecharcoalsandslowpyrolysisbiochars
AT masiellocarolinea carbonsequestrationpotentialandphysicochemicalpropertiesdifferbetweenwildfirecharcoalsandslowpyrolysisbiochars