Chapter 19: Biochar to Reduce Carbon Footprint PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381816786 The use of biochar to reduce carbon footprint: toward net zero emission from agriculture Chapter · June 2024 DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-443-15506-2.00001-8 CITATIONS...

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381816786 The use of biochar to reduce carbon footprint: toward net zero emission from agriculture Chapter · June 2024 DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-443-15506-2.00001-8 CITATIONS READS 0 84 4 authors: Anurag Bera Ram Swaroop Meena Tea Research Association (Tocklai) Banaras Hindu University 54 PUBLICATIONS 112 CITATIONS 390 PUBLICATIONS 12,947 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Anamika Barman Priyanka Saha Indian Agricultural Research Institute Indian Agricultural Research Institute 46 PUBLICATIONS 88 CITATIONS 45 PUBLICATIONS 72 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Anurag Bera on 11 July 2024. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.  C H A P T E R 19 The use of biochar to reduce carbon footprint: toward net zero emission from agriculture Anurag Bera1,3, Ram Swaroop Meena1, Anamika Barman2 and Priyanka Saha2 1 Department of Agronomy, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India 2Division of Agronomy, ICAR—Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa, New Delhi, India 3Department of Agronomy, Tea Research Association, North Bengal Regional R & D Center, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, India 19.1 Introduction Climate change is no longer a concern for the distant future; instead, it has become an urgent crisis that can be tackled only by combining efforts worldwide. The average global surface temperature is rising due to the build-up of greenhouse gases (GHGs) caused by anthropogenic activities such as the generation of electricity, manufacturing goods, clearing of forests, use of automobiles, and the intensive crop production system. From 1901 to 2020, the Earth’s average temperature increased by around 1.1 C (NASA Earth Observatory, 2015), whereas the last decade of 2011
20 was the warmest in recorded his- tory. Since the 1980s, each successive decade has set a record for warmth (IPCC, 2007). Not only the increase in temperature, but climate change also encompasses a series of adverse consequences such as rising sea levels and altered weather patterns like drought, flood, heat waves, cyclones and many more. Now, more than ever, it is critical to cut GHG emissions to head off the worst effects of climate change. Several international treaties and agreements are adopted globally, which reflect the commitment and strategies for combat- ing climate change. The Paris Agreement’s (2015) target of “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C above preindustrial levels” has raised the Biochar Production for Green Economy DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-15506-2.00001-8 © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. 389 390 19. The use of biochar to reduce carbon footprint: toward net zero emission from agriculture bar for international climate policy and brought greater attention to the role all sectors can play in mitigating climate change. Agriculture is one of the most critical sectors of our liv- ing, contributing significantly to global warming due to the GHGs it releases. Agriculture and food production are associated with emitting three GHGs, that is, CO2, CH4 and N2O. During 2018, 9.3 billion metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2-e) was emitted worldwide because of agriculture, which includes emissions from both agricultural operations inside and outside of farms as well as those caused by changes in land use and land cover (Tubiello et al., 2013; FAO). After dragging its feet on climate change, the world is finally mobilizing toward a goal of lessening GHG emissions, which has been named a mission called “net zero emission.” It refers to a carbon-neutral state in which the total amount of GHGs emitted into the atmosphere is equal to the amount removed from the atmosphere by that sector. As such, there has been an effort to identify the factors that can significantly cut emissions of GHGs. After long years of research, scientists worldwide have recommended a C-rich, pyrolysed porous product, namely “biochar” as one of the potent amendments to capture C in the form of soil carbon (SC), thereby lessening releases of CO2 into the atmosphere. Several prior studies have documented biochar’s distinctive physicochemical features, such as its large specific surface area (SSA), abundant hydrophilic surface func- tional groups, high liming capability, and substantial cation exchange capacity (CEC) (Li et al., 2014; Pradhan, Meena, Kumar, & Lal, 2023; Singh, Chaturvedi, & Datta, 2019). All of the biochar’s qualities work toward its ultimate goal of increasing SC stock, which is nec- essary for achieving a carbon and noncarbon GHG emissions equilibrium in agroecosys- tems. When talking about agricultural ecosystems, soil becomes an essential sink for C which can prevent the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Around 2500 gigatons (GT) of the 3170 GT total C in terrestrial ecosystems can be found in the soil. Both organic and inor- ganic forms of C (1550 GT) are present in soil (950 GT). A further 10
60 mg C hm22 (1 hm2 5 104 m2) can be stored in soil (Song, Pan, Zhang, Zhang, & Wang, 2016). Sequestering C in the soil can be an excellent technique to reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (Meena, Pradhan, Kumar, & Lal, 2023); side-by-side it can increase crop growth and soil productivity (Baronti et al., 2010). In underdeveloped countries, increasing the soil organic pool by 1 Mg ha21 year21 might increase crop yield by 32 Mt year21 (Lal, 2006). Therefore, improving the soil C pool should be our main objective to attain net zero emis- sions from the agricultural production system. Adding biochar to the farm ecosystem can improve soil organic carbon (SOC) storage and reduce GHG emissions. This chapter will highlight the contribution of the agricultural production system to GHG emissions, the potential and mechanism of biochar-led GHG emissions mitigation and ultimately, the path to achieving net-zero emission goals from the agricultural sector. 19.2 Carbon footprint and its significance in the changing global environment Global warming refers to the increase in the earth’s average surface temperature and its consequences, which have become a massive threat to the entire human race (Pradhan & Meena, 2023; Sivakumar, 2011; Smith & Leiserowitz, 2012). Human activities, such as the excessive burning of fossil fuels and coals, have raised atmospheric concentrations of C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation  19.3 Carbon footprint 391 GHGs, which in turn has contributed to global warming. These GHGs serve as a blanket or cap, preventing part of the heat from escaping from Earth into space (Hansen, 2004; Kweku et al., 2018; Meena & Pradhan, 2023). In response, the planet’s average surface tem- perature is rising, and natural disasters like storms, heat waves, floods, and droughts are becoming increasingly prevalent (Singh & Singh, 2012). Over the past few decades, the sci- entific communities have expressed grave concerns regarding global warming and climate change. Numerous international treaties, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992), the Kyoto Protocol (1997), the Bali Roadmap (2007), the Copenhagen Agreement (2009), and the Paris Agreement (2016) have been ratified already, which illustrate the resolve and actions of the government to combat climatic changes. Countries have made emissions reduction pledges and new initiatives by consen- sus. As a result, the novel ideas of a low-C economy, low-C city, C trade, C pricing, C tax, and other measures to cut C emissions have emerged as a crucial aspect of global develop- ment strategy (Hertwich & Peters, 2009; Larsen & Hertwich, 2009; Lenzen, Wood, & Wiedmann, 2010; Pradhan & Meena, 2023a). Recent studies on low-C issues have centered on accounting for and reducing emissions, trading platforms for C emissions, levies on C emissions, and emission regulations. One of the most fundamental and important areas of low-C study is the carbon footprint (CF). CFs are the sum of all GHG emissions produced by any human activity, institution, service, location, or product, measured in terms of car- bon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e). A growing interest in assessing the CF has been observed among researchers and policymakers. In this section, we will explore the fundamentals of the CF and see how it has the potential to become an effective monitor of CO2 emissions. 19.3 Carbon footprint The concept of the CF developed from the idea of the ecological footprint, which quan- tifies the impact of human activity on the planet’s natural resources. Similarly, The CF is a measurement of the entire quantity of CO2 emissions generated by an action or accumu- lated over the life stages of a product, both directly and indirectly (Pradhan & Meena, 2022; Weidema, Thrane, Christensen, Schmidt, & Løkke, 2008; Wiedmann, 2007). The CF is a type of footprint indicator that includes the ecological, water and land footprint (Fang, Heijungs, & de Snoo, 2014). The Industrial Revolution in the 1820s marked the beginning of rapid climate change (Foley et al., 2013). Human activities like burning fossil fuels for energy and repeatedly cutting down trees have increased atmospheric GHG levels, mak- ing it more challenging to establish a C-neutral lifestyle. Many lifestyle changes can help reduce a person’s CF, including devouring less meat and dairy and wasting less food, upgrading to more energy-efficient home appliances, buying fewer goods significantly (especially disposable items, like fast fashion), and taking fewer trips (especially plane trips). Individuals, businesses, organizations, governments, and nations leave a CF (Damert, Morris, & Guenther, 2020; Finkbeiner, 2009). Once the CF is calculated, steps can be taken to lessen it, through measures like greener technology, increased energy efficiency, improved process and product management, retooled Green Public or Private Procurement, altered consumption habits, and C offsetting, among others (Roy, Meena, Kumar, Jhariya, & Pradhan, 2021; Sundarakani, Goh, de Souza, & Shun, 2008; Singh et al., 2023a). C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation 392 19. The use of biochar to reduce carbon footprint: toward net zero emission from agriculture Calculating a product or organizational CF involves a multistep process known as life cycle assessment, during which numerous aspects of the product or organization’s opera- tional activities are evaluated. The functional boundaries must be understood to quantify emission data and derive the CF. CO2-e is calculated by multiplying emission data from various actions by a standard emission factor. While the idea of a person‘s CF has been around since the 1990s as an indicator to quantify the impact, it took off in 2003 when oil and gas firm BP ran an ad campaign asking random individuals on the street what their CF was. That drive excited individuals about figuring out their CF and enlightened them on the importance of such studies. Since then, CF analysis and monitoring have become mainstream and are typically considered when making projections. To compare the rela- tive impact of different GHGs on global warming, their global warming potential is some- times expressed as the warming impact of a fixed amount of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e). Compared to the 298 CO2-e produced by one unit of N2O, only 23 CO2-e are made by one team of CH4 (Li et al., 2014; Pradhan et al., 2022). The CF per unit area-kg CO2-e. ha21 number is sometimes used to describe the global warming potential of all gases. 19.3.1 Trend and analysis of current CO2 emission The percentage of greenhouse effect attributable to CO2 is exceptionally high, hovering around 75%. The majority of CO2 emissions (76% of the total), including those from elec- tricity and heat generation, transportation, industrial processes, and residential use, all come from the combustion of fossil fuels. Another source (24% of the total) of man-made CO2 emissions includes agriculture, forestry, and other land uses, largely attributable to deforestation (Fig. 19.1). In this scenario, the trend analysis approach becomes essential for modeling CO2 and non-CO2 GHG emissions from various sources and developing effec- tive policies and strategies to lower their proportions. Analysis results demonstrated that the models are suitable for making long-term estimates of CO2 emissions for strategic planning. Historically, CO2 has made up around 0.03% of the total volume of the earth’s atmosphere; but, because of human actions like burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees, that number has climbed by about 25% since FIGURE 19.1 Global CO2 emissions by different economic sectors. C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation  19.3 Carbon footprint 393 the beginning of the industrial era. In 2021, the average atmospheric concentration of CO2 reached 414.72 parts per million, an all-time high. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have steadily risen over the past 60 years, at a rate around 100 times faster than in the past due to natural causes, such as the end of the last ice age 11,000
17,000 years ago. According to research presented at Conferences of the Parties (COP27) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) in Sharm El-Sheikh, C emissions are expected to climb slightly in 2022 compared to 2021, with the most significant increase expected in India (16%). If projections hold, the United States (11.5%) will see the second- highest rise in emissions. However, China (20.9%) and the European Union (20.8%) are setting an encouraging example by lowering their emissions (Kumawat et al., 2022; Moosmann et al., 2021) (Fig. 19.2). In 2019, global emissions reached 36.3 GT, decreasing to 34.5 GT in 2020 due to the prolonged economic drag caused by COVID-19, and rising to 36.3 GT in 2021. Increased oil consumption and fossil fuel burning are the primary drivers behind the anticipated 1% increase in global fossil CO2 emissions in 2022 (range 0.1%
1.9%), reaching 36.6 GT (Hoang et al., 2021; Newell, Raimi, Villanueva, & Prest, 2021; Sheoran et al., 2022). More alarmingly, the COP27 report notes that there is now a 50% probability that global warming will reach 1.5 C (the lower limit of temperature rise com- pared to preindustrial levels specified by the Paris Agreement) over the next nine years if emission trends are continued (Arora & Arora, 2023; Meena et al., 2022; Siva, 2022). Economic factors and international treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, and the UNFCC COPs, all of which aim to reduce GHG emissions collectively, inform the analysis of the relationships between energy use and CO2 emissions. Energy consumption trends across countries and progress toward emission reduction goals are investigated annually. Following the direction, decisions and policies are developed. Thus, it is crucial to assess the data on C emissions regularly and to adopt measures accordingly. FIGURE 19.2 Status of CO2 emission of top emitter country/Union (COP 27). C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation 394 19. The use of biochar to reduce carbon footprint: toward net zero emission from agriculture 19.3.2 Agricultural practices for C footprint management The agricultural sector is responsible for 18% of global emissions of GHGs, primarily CO2, CH4, and N2O. Because of the widespread conversion of forested and peat-land eco- systems to agricultural use, agriculture has become a significant contributor to global warming and climate change. Non- CO2 emissions, on the other hand, are primarily the result of agricultural and livestock processes. It is therefore, essential to lessen the impacts of climate change by lowering GHG emissions. This can be achieved by thoroughly inves- tigating the CF produced by agricultural practices (Ozlu, Arriaga, Bilen, Gozukara, & Babur, 2022; Raj et al., 2021). Reducing GHG emissions and, consequently, climate change, could be a goal of efforts to regulate agrarian management by evaluating the agricultural CF. Farming activities like driving tractors, pumping water for irrigation, using a power tiller, harvesting, threshing, winnowing, transporting the produce, and so on all use a con- siderable amount of energy. Management strategies for improving energy efficiency while lowering CF, are particularly promising in this setting (Paris et al., 2022). When dealing with climate change, CF relies on the soil system for inputs and outputs. Understanding the inputs-outputs perspective requires analyzing the mechanisms of C sequestration and stabilization in the face of rising temperatures and other environmental stresses. Implementing efficient management practices in fields, that is, conservation tillage, organic fertilization, biochar-like organic amendments additions, manuring, crop rotation, and improved residue management increases C sequestration. Similarly, when the mechanical processes that contribute to the natural sequestration of soil C are taken into account, fac- tors including crop density, crop type, and photosynthesis become significant in CF assess- ments (Ozlu et al., 2022). Using inorganic fertilizers without careful management can have unforeseen repercussions in conventional agriculture systems, such as lowering soil pH and moisture, GHG emission, spreading soil colloids, reducing soil aggregate stability, and many more (Khalid, Tuffour, & Bonsu, 2014; Kumar et al., 2020; Lawal & Girei, 2013). The C sequestration/GHG emission ratio becomes quite significant during fertilization in the cropping system. In recent times, low-cost organic fertilization has garnered more attention as of late because of its ability to provide the nutrients progressively as per the requirement of the crop while simultaneously protecting the C stability of the soil (Zhao et al., 2009). Manuring has been shown to improve soil health by influencing soil proper- ties, including biological indicators, soil microbial community compositions, microbial bio- mass, earthworm populations, enzyme activities, soil aggregation, porosity, soil bulk density and compaction, soil pH and soil water relation (Ozlu, Sandhu, Kumar, & Arriaga, 2019). Biochar, a C-rich pyrolyzed biomass, has been gaining popularity as an organic amendment due to its ability to improve soil fertility, soil structure, nutrient availability, soil-water retention, and SC storage (Bartocci, Bidini, Saputo, & Fantozzi, 2016). C added to soils by biochar treatments can persist for decades or longer. Biochar can be used to counteract climate change by lowering soil degradation and soil-borne GHG emissions, increasing C sequestration and soil nutrient content, and decreasing soil erosion. (Hagemann et al., 2017). SOC increases when organic matter, such as agricultural leftovers, decomposes at the soil’s surface. Conventional tillage practices may speed up the minerali- zation of SOC and the release of CO2 because they break up the soil aggregates and expose labile organic matter, which makes soil microorganisms work harder to oxidize SOM. C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation  19.4 Greenhouse gas emissions and the role of agriculture’s production system 395 Agricultural CO2 emissions are strongly correlated with the frequency and severity of soil disturbances (Kumar et al., 2020a; La Scala, Bolonhezi, & Pereira, 2006). Conservation till- age or minimum tillage has come up with potential solutions for climate change mitigation purposes, which suggests reduced soil disturbance residue cover and rotation of crops to maintain sustainability among all components. Herbicide, another potential contributor of GHG emissions can also be restricted for use by pairing it with conservation tillage and applying only at critical stages (Cordeau, 2022). N2O and CH4 emissions from the soil are caused by biological and naturally occurring mechanisms in the soil ecosystem, both of which can be controlled by maintaining good water and nutrient status and using appro- priate farming techniques. In this way, CF can be reduced by maintaining a balanced soil ecosystem, adopting resilient farming practices, stimulating soil microbial activity, and forming a sizable C pool. 19.4 Greenhouse gas emissions and the role of agriculture’s production system 19.4.1 Agricultural sectors and greenhouse gas inventories Agriculture is one of the most susceptible sectors to climate change and a significant contributor to it (FAO, 2016; Mbow et al., 2019). Land use change and agricultural produc- tion account for about 20%
25% of GHGs released by humans (IPCC, 2019). As the world’s population rises, so will the need for food, feed, fiber, and fuel, putting a strain on farmers to raise productivity. Expanding crop areas by clearing uncultivated land is the quickest way to increase grain production, but this threatens ecosystem biodiversity (Isbell et al., 2011); and decreases environmental quality (Foley et al., 2011) by using up C sup- plies in natural soils and vegetation (Liu, Cutforth, Chai, & Gan, 2016). Since most agricul- tural inputs significantly contribute to GHG emissions (Goglio et al., 2014; Yue, Xu, Hillier, Cheng, & Pan, 2017), farming negatively impacts the environment. In particular, the incautious and unbalanced use of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides in high-yielding farming systems contributes to GHG emissions (Lehmann & Joseph, 2015). In addition to agricultural production, animal husbandry is recognized as a significant contributor to GHG emissions, accounting for around 18% of world emissions (Gerber et al., 2013). CH4, N2O, and CO2 from livestock contribute approximately 44%, 29%, and 27% of the world’s total GHG emissions (Forabosco, Chitchyan, & Mantovani, 2017; Gerber et al., 2013; Rojas- Downing, Nejadhashemi, Harrigan, & Woznicki, 2017). Global GHG emissions in 2017 were 51 billion tonnes CO2-e (Gt CO2-e year21); if land use emissions are included, they can reach 56 Gt CO2-e year21. In 2017, the percentage of agriculture’s global CO2-e emis- sions from all human activities was 20%. The emissions from agriculture were 11.1 Gt CO2-e year21, made up of 6.1 Gt CO2-e year21 from crop and livestock operations within the farm gate and 5.0 Gt CO2-e year21 from agricultural land usage. Within the farm gate, crop and livestock operations contributed 11%, while related land use contrib- uted another 9%. Changes in the overall trend and the relative proportion of CO2 emis- sions attributable to crop and livestock activities relative to total CO2 emissions across all sectors have been observed over time (Fig. 19.3). C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation 396 19. The use of biochar to reduce carbon footprint: toward net zero emission from agriculture FIGURE 19.3 Annual emissions from crops, livestock, and related land use, and agriculture’s percentage share of global greenhouse gas emissions, 2000
18. 19.4.2 Effect of land use and farming practices on soil greenhouse gas emission Several factors affect crop production’s GHG emission footprint. The complete life cycle analysis showed that CO2 is emitted during the growing of a crop, transportation of numerous input goods to the farm, and manufacturing processes that take place off-farm. The significant factors contributing toward GHG emission from agriculture have been discussed below (Fig. 19.4). 19.4.2.1 In situ crop residue decomposition by microbes A significant source of nitrogen (N) in the soil is the crop residue left over from no-till systems or the biomass worked into tilled systems after harvest. It transforms such as min- eralization, nitrification, and denitrification, all of which contribute to CO2, CH4, and N2O production under aerobic or anaerobic conditions (Wang et al., 2018). In Uttar Pradesh, India, total emissions from burning agricultural waste in the field in 2007 were 251 gigagrams (Gg) of CH4 and 6.5 Gg of N2O (Bhatia, Jain, & Pathak, 2013). 19.4.2.2 Injudicious use of N fertilizers Agriculture is responsible for around 80% of the N2O that humans emit into the atmo- sphere each year; more than half of these emissions come from farming practices (Pires, da Cunha, de Matos Carlos, & Costa, 2015). The intensity of the emissions is influenced by C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation  19.4 Greenhouse gas emissions and the role of agriculture’s production system 397 FIGURE 19.4 List of agricultural factors contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. environmental conditions such as precipitation and potential evapotranspiration during N fertilization (Carlson et al., 2017; Millar et al., 2018). For instance, the direct leaching and emissions of N2O due to using N fertilizers are proportional to the relationship between precipitation and potential evapotranspiration (Tongwane et al., 2016). 19.4.2.3 Manure application Over half of agriculture’s GHG emissions come from fertilizer and manure on the field’s surface (Ren et al., 2017). The amount and scope of manure’s impact on GHG emis- sions depend on factors such as the manure’s composition, the methods used to apply it, and the rates at which it is applied. Since solid manures add inert forms of C and N to the soil, their potential GHG emission footprint is lower than that of liquid manures (Aguirre- Villegas & Larson., 2017). Manure incorporation, however, is less susceptible to GHG emissions than surface application. 19.4.2.4 Excessive uneconomical use of fossil fuels In recent years, fuel-driven machinery has become increasingly common in on-farm operations like planting seeds, applying fertilizer and pesticides, harvesting field crops, and off-farm operations like fertilizer manufacture, shipping, storage, and delivery to the farm gate. In general, manufacturing N fertilizers using fossil fuels before field application produces more emissions than the production and use of pesticides in crop fields (Liu et al., 2016). 19.4.2.5 Land use changes To mitigate the negative consequences of climate change, especially during drought and humid spells, farmers may use land-use change as an adaptive feedback mechanism (Permpool, Bonnet, & Gheewala, 2016; Lungarska & Chakir., 2018). In tropical climates, C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation 398 19. The use of biochar to reduce carbon footprint: toward net zero emission from agriculture primary forest conversion to cropland (about 25%), perennial crops (about 30%), and forest conversion to grassland (about 12%) results in significant soil organic C loss (Don, Schumacher, & Freibauer, 2011). 19.4.2.6 Crop residue burning The CF of GHG is greatly affected by the burning of agricultural crop residues and con- tributes to the release of GHGs (CO2, N2O, and CH4). Between 48% and 95% of this resi- due is burned in Thailand and the Philippines open fields. In India, Thailand, and the Philippines, open-field burning of rice straw results in GHG emissions of respectively 0.05%, 0.18%, and 0.56% (Jain, Bhatia, & Pathak, 2014). 19.4.2.7 Dairy, aquaculture and fish farming Livestock, especially ruminants, occupy 70%
80% of all anthropogenic land uses worldwide (FAO, 2009; Bellarby et al., 2013). The enteric fermentation of ruminant animals creates CH4, whereas the primary sources of N2O are the denitrification and nitrification of soils (which are used to grow feed). Aquaculture refers to using different methods and powers to raise a wide variety of fish species. Recently, experts worldwide have produced data on GHG emissions and their CF for several aquaculture products, particularly marine species (salmon and shrimp) (Robb, MacLeod, Hasan, & Soto, 2017). Rice cultivation (10%), the use of synthetic fertilizer (12.6%), burning crop residue and pasture (4.7%), leftover crop residues (4.7%), enteric emissions (39.7%), manure left on pastures (16.1%), poor manure management (6.7%), and manure application (3.7%) significantly contribute to total GHG emission, according to a more recent report (Patra & Babu, 2017). 19.4.2.8 Climate innovative farming practices for reducing GHG emission Although the agricultural sector serves as a contributor to GHG emissions, also, as a mitigation approach, is managed properly. Recent cultivation methods and technologies are being employed related to the mitigation climate-related issues. The main three approaches are reduction of emission, enhancement of removal and avoiding emission (Fig. 19.5). By storing C in the soil and lowering CH4 and N2O emissions from the soil through changes in land-use management, GHG emissions from agriculture can be FIGURE 19.5 Approaches for mitigation of climate change. Reduction in Emission Enhancement Avoiding in Removal Emission C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation  19.4 Greenhouse gas emissions and the role of agriculture’s production system 399 mitigated. The quantity of C stored in the soil increases when crop mixtures are changed to include more perennial or deep-rooted plants. The accumulation of soil C is promoted by cultivation methods that leave residues and minimize tillage, intense tillage. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions can be decreased through modifications in crop genetics and effective management of irrigation, fertilizer use, and soils. Such choices are crucial for increasing soil fertility and mitigating global warming. 19.4.2.9 Diversifying crop rotations to reduce carbon footprint Crop diversity is increasingly recognized as a critical strategy for raising agroecosystem production and reducing CF (Gan et al., 2015; Yang, Gao, Zhang, Chen, & Sui, 2014). The previous crop heavily influences the GHG emission footprint of the next crop in a rotation due to its effect on the N2 cycle and the soil’s organic and mineral components. Therefore, it is more important to calculate the net GHG balance and GHG emission footprint of an entire crop sequence than for a single crop in a system. 19.4.2.10 Carbon sequestration SC sequestration involves enclosing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in a stable carbon form within soils, where it will not be quickly remitted. Soil parameters, environmental variables, native plants, and human-made factors strongly influence the capacity for soil C sequestration in an agroecosystem. As a result, some agro-ecosystems have low SOC stocks, whereas others have substantial SOC stocks. It needs a special adop- tion of best management approaches (such as conservation agriculture, precision farming, integrated nutrient management, etc.) that generate a positive C budget to restore SOC in C-depleted systems. A 1-m soil profile’s uppermost 30
100 cm contains roughly half of the world’s SOC. Recently, a plan emerged to increase the amount of SOC sequestered globally to 4 mm each year to combat climate change and boost food security (Lal, 2018). 19.4.2.11 Genetic enhancement of crops and animals The creation of novel varieties and hybrids, genetic selection, enhanced breeding meth- ods, and genetic engineering and modification technology have all contributed to a signifi- cant rise in food output. We can now find traits in a genome that boost productivity and confer resilience to pests and drought. Other characteristics, including improved input uptake efficiency or the ability to produce inputs inside the plant and the enhancement of beneficial soil nutrients, will be easier to identify and improve thanks to scientific advancements. 19.4.2.12 Conservation agriculture Conservation agriculture can improve the use of natural resources, including water, air, fossil fuels, and soil, by adopting resource-saving technologies like zero- or minimum till- age with direct sowing, permanent or semipermanent residue cover, and crop rotations. These innovations can increase agriculture’s sustainability by protecting the resource base with greater input efficiency and reducing GHG emissions. C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation 400 19. The use of biochar to reduce carbon footprint: toward net zero emission from agriculture 19.4.2.13 Increasing input-use efficiency The essential components of agricultural production are land, other natural resources, labor, and capital. We have relatively plenty of labor and capital, but our supply of land and other natural resources is limited and even declining. The overall amount of water used for agriculture is anticipated to rise by 13% by 2025. Without improving irrigation efficiency, we may need 50% more water by 2050 to meet the world’s food needs. Since natural gas is a primary component in the production of urea, the direct nitrogenous fertilizer used in the nation, the emission of CO2 in the case of fertilizer application is indirect. Here, using nitrogenous fertilizer has resulted in the direct emission of N2O. Hence, reducing the natural gas subsidies and replacing outdated factories and technology could mitigate this case. 19.4.2.14 Different agronomic measures SC storage can reduce GHG emissions by incorporating a more efficient set of crop management practices that boost yields and increase residual C (Sarma et al., 2018). Using methods such as cultivating superior crop types, altering crop rotations with perennial crops, and substituting N fertilizer with manure have all been shown to decrease emis- sions of GHGs (which encourages more below-ground biomass), and avoid or reduce the intensity and extent of fallow land use (Sarma et al., 2018) (Table 19.1). TABLE 19.1 Agronomic practices and input details. Agronomic practices Details Improved mechanization Fuel efficient, multitasking, fast operating, compatible with biodiesel Manure management Improved storage, proper handling, anaerobic digestion, efficient use, additive use Tillage alteration Reduced tillage, minimum tillage, zero tillage Irrigation alteration Intermittent drainage, mid-season drainage, controlled irrigation, alternate wet and dry, timely irrigation Crop rotation and Crop rotation, crop diversification, legume intensification, cover crop, crop Intensification intensification, direct seed rice, grazing management, agroforestry Fertilizer management Site-specific nutrient management, lime management, biofertilizer, integrated nutrient management Choice of cultivar N efficient, short duration, less CH4 emitting Residue management Mulching, removal of straw, biochar, composting, straw incorporation Bioenergy production Reducing bioethanol and biodiesel C footprint, energy crops 19.5 Potential of biochar to cut down on greenhouse effects Biochar has gained significance in modern agricultural and environmental management since the discovery of the so-called terra preta in the Brazilian Amazon by the late Wim C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation  19.5 Potential of biochar to cut down on greenhouse effects 401 Sombroek. Biochar’s proven effectiveness in sequestering C in soil and lowering GHG emissions from soil (CO2, CH4, and N2O) has increased its value for combating climate change and global warming. There has been a recent surge in interest in using biochar as a soil amendment due to the substance’s potential to improve soil quality in various ways. These include reducing nutrient losses, increasing moisture retention, water holding capacity, hydraulic conductivity, soil aeration (Schmidt et al., 2014), soil microbial activity (Purakayastha, Kumari, & Pathak, 2015), and promoting agricultural productivity (Jones, Rousk, Edwards-Jones, DeLuca, & Murphy, 2012). Thus, applying biochar in crop fields can be an efficient strategy for active crop management and lessening the CF of specific agricultural land use. This section will mainly emphasize how biochar becomes an effective tool by enhancing SC sequestration and reducing GHG emissions from agricul- tural systems. 19.5.1 Biochar as a tool for sequestering C in soil The role of SC in maintaining secure food supplies, functional ecosystems, and a thriv- ing environment is becoming increasingly important in the face of climate change. Agricultural land use restoration, adoption of conservation tillage practices and application of biochar as a soil amendment are all considered to be diverse methods of sequestering C in the soil (Lal, 2008). Biochar is a C-rich porous substance obtained by thermo-chemically converting biomass at temperatures between 350 and 700 C in an oxygen-deficient or no oxygen environment (Amonette & Joseph, 2009; Singh et al., 2020). It has been demonstrated to increase SC levels due to its unique physicochemical proper- ties. Biochar can store C in an inert state for very long periods in both managed and wild ecosystems; the half-life of biochar-C typically ranges from 102 to 107 years (Zimmerman, 2010; Chaturvedi, Singh, Dhyani, Govindaraju, & Mandal, 2021). Without compromising food security, habitat, or soil conservation, annual biochar production has the potential to reduce net emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O by up to 1.8 PgCO2-C equivalent (CO2-Ce) per year (12% of current anthropogenic CO2-Ce emission), and total net emissions over a cen- tury by 130 Pg CO2-e (Woolf, Amonette, Street-Perrott, Lehmann, & Joseph, 2010; Paustian et al., 2016). In a comparison analysis conducted by Paustian et al. (2016); multiple agriculture-based GHG mitigation practices were evaluated based on their average CO2 removal rates from the atmosphere. Biochar application was shown to be the most success- ful technique there (Fig. 19.6). Biochar’s ability to mitigate climate change is primarily attributable to its highly refractory character, as dictated by feedstock and pyrolysis temperature, which slows down the pace at which C fixed by photosynthesis is released back into the atmosphere. Recent studies suggest that shorter pyrolysis time and higher pyrolysis temperature can produce higher biochar recalcitrance (Singh et al., 2020). In another dimension, in a developing coun- try like India, a considerable amount of biomass is produced each year, and most of the sur- plus biomass residues are subjected to on-farm burning, accounting for 93
141 million tons (MT) each year. Among the cereal residues, 44 million tonnes of rice, followed by 24.5 MT of wheat residues, and 80% of the cotton fiber residues are burnt on-farm. This kind of malprac- tice releases a large amount of GHG into the atmosphere, damaging the health of the soil, C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation 402 19. The use of biochar to reduce carbon footprint: toward net zero emission from agriculture Biochar applicaon 1.4 Average Removal rate in Pg CO 2-e. yr-1 1.2 Grazing land management 1 Enhanced root phenotypes 0.8 Cropland management 0.6 Changing cropping and land use 0.4 paern Restroraon of degraded land 0.2 Water management 0 1 FIGURE 19.6 Average greenhouse gas removal potential of various agriculture practices. Source: Paustian, K., Lehmann, J., Ogle, S., Reay, D., Robertson, G. P., & Smith, P. (2016). Climate-smart soils. Nature, 532(7597), 49
57. and taking away valuable plant nutrients in the crop residues.70
80 MT of rice and wheat straw are burned annually in the Indian state of Punjab, releasing almost 140 MT of CO2 into the air along with CH4, N2O, and other air pollutants. In this context, biochar presents a mul- tifaceted chance to convert large-scale crop residues into profitable assets like biochar rather than costly liabilities (Punia, Nautiyal, & Kant, 2008). 19.5.2 Meta-analysis of biochar’s effects on biogenic greenhouse gas fluxes GHGs in the atmosphere trap the heat, increasing the global average surface tempera- ture. Human activities contribute to the ongoing increases in the three most important GHGs contributing to global warming: CO2, CH4, and N2O. (IPCC, 2007). There is new data to suggest that biochar can aid in mitigating global warming by lowering emissions of GHGs such as CH4 and N2O (Leng & Huang, 2018). It was projected by Woolf et al. (2010) that if biochar were used globally, it might offset as much as 12% of the world’s current anthropogenic CO2-Ce emissions. While biochar has the potential to reduce GHG emissions, many unanswered concerns remain, particularly concerning the nature and extent of the reduction in soil GHG emissions that will occur after its application. When applied to soil, biochar can alter soil microbiome composition and activity, soil pH, and biogeochemical processes (Singh et al., 2023b), all affecting soil GHG fluxes (Chan, Van Zwieten, Meszaros, Downie, & Joseph, 2008; Spokas & Reicosky, 2009). A rough sense of biochar’s potential in GHG mitigation can be gleaned from the few metaanalysis studies that have examined the shift in GHG fluxes produced by its application. In the laboratory condition, Liu et al. (2011) found that adding biochar to waterlogged paddy soil lowered CH4 and CO2 emissions. This was attributed to a combination of factors, including the bio- char amendment reduced N2O emissions from pastureland and soybean soil by 80% and 50%, respectively, by reducing microbial conversion and denitrification, according to C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation  19.6 Related favorable impacts of biochar on climate change mitigation 403 findings by Rondon, Ramirez, and Lehmann (2005), limitation of methanogen activity, an increase in pH, and a decrease in microbial biomass C. Biochar’s impact on soil GHG emissions has been replicated across multiple investigations (Van Zwieten et al., 2010; Feng, Xu, Yu, Xie, & Lin, 2012). However, variability is also observed in biochar-related studies. For example, Zhang et al. (2010) reported applying biochar at a rate of 40 t ha21 reduced N2O emissions by 21%
28% and 10.7%
41.8% in paddy and maize fields, respec- tively, while increasing CH4 emissions by 41% in paddy and CO2 emissions by 12% in maize. In a meta-analysis study, 177 observations from 51 publications reported that sig- nificantly (p , 0.05), N2O emissions were significantly reduced by biochar application by biochar application by 19% and 15% in both field and laboratory studies, respectively, for an average reduction of 16%. More than 76% of the field trials assessing the influence of biochar on N2O emission were done for less than 0.5 years, and in these experiments, N2O emissions were observed to fall significantly (p , 0.05) by 21% (Song et al., 2016). For CO2 flux analysis, 77 observations from 31 publications were considered, which reported that Biochar dramatically reduced CO2 emissions by 5% in rice fields but raised them by 12% in upland areas, according to field trials. Although biochar application shows an effect on CO2 fluxes, not immediately (,0.5 years), it requires a substantial period (up to 1 year) to show its impact (Song et al., 2016). In the case of CH4 flux, 42 observations of 19publica- tions were considered, which implied that compared to nonbiochar treated controls, bio- char application considerably (p , 0.05) increased CH4 emission by 19% in the field but significantly (p , 0.05) reduced CH4 emission by 18% in the laboratory conditions (Song et al., 2016). These results highlight that several parameters, including research locations, experiment duration, biochar application rate, biochar feedstock, and pyrolysis processes, considerably affect the influence of biochar amendment on soil GHG fluxes. Therefore, to determine whether or not the policy will successfully reduce GHG emissions, all three of the most essential GHGs must be taken into account simultaneously and then compared with the conventional situations. Understanding the potential significance of biochar in reducing global climate change is hampered by our lack of knowledge about the overall influence on three GHG emissions, reducing the predictive accuracy of models calculating reduced soil GHG emissions due to biochar application. However, biochar can be recom- mended for application in crop fields for its climate change mitigation abilities and its numerous positive effects, as realized from many experiments. 19.6 Related favorable impacts of biochar on climate change mitigation 19.6.1 Negative priming effect of biochar on the mineralization of soil organic carbon The role of biochar in SOC mineralization remains unclear and contentious. Biochar application alters the SOC mineralization through “priming effects,” ultimately changing the soil organic C mineralization rates. The priming impact of biochar on SOC mineraliza- tion might be either positive or negative, or it may have no effect at all. Biochar’s ability to prime soil depends on factors such as the soil type, labile OM present, the biochar’s char- acteristics, and the pyrolysis conditions (Abbruzzini et al., 2017). For instance, A larger C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation 404 19. The use of biochar to reduce carbon footprint: toward net zero emission from agriculture concentration of labile OC in manure-based biochar makes it more susceptible to rapid decomposition and an eventual beneficial priming effect than biochar produced from plants (Singh and Cowie, 2014). The negative priming effect is defined as any retardation in the SOC mineralization due to adding a new substrate or inhibiting microbial activity due to specific changes in the soil environment (Zimmerman et al., 2011). The presence of the substrate is a crucial factor in native SOC decomposition. Biochar application affects substrate availability by releasing soil-labile organic C for use by soil microorganisms or by adsorption to the biochar surface. Based on the pyrolysis conditions, biochar with simi- lar feedstock can exhibit various priming effects. A rapid increase in soil organic C due to the breakdown of labile organic C has positive priming effect of biochar application. The negative priming effect of biochar applications is caused by the material’s high C content and aromatic structure, which impedes biodegradation and disintegration (Rasul et al., 2021). Another significant mechanism for the negative priming effect of biochar is the increase in soil aggregate formation caused by its application, which protects the soil’s organic C from microbial decomposition (Zheng et al., 2018). In addition, the adsorption of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) into the surface of biochar reduces the decomposition. It increases the stability of soil organic C. Biochar can increase the stability of SOC through two mechanisms: encapsulating organic matter on its surface and protecting it from fur- ther degradation through sorption to the biochar’s surface (Rasul et al., 2022). Another fac- tor in biochar-induced negative priming is the release of toxic substances during biomass combustion. These include dioxins, furans, benzene, phenol, methoxy-phenol, carboxylic acid, ketone, ethane, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. These harmful substances are micro- bial inhibitors that stop microbial activity and proliferation (Zhu et al., 2017). Li et al. (2014) conducted a study in North China plain to a sandy loam soil with four treatments, that is, control, biochar (0.5% of soil mass), inorganic nitrogen (100 mg kg21), and com- bined biochar and nitrogen. They reported that the CO2 emissions from native SOC were reduced by 64.9%
68.8% when biochar and N amendment were combined. This shows that biochar application had a negative priming effect, inhibiting both native SOC degra- dation and the stimulation impact of inorganic N on native SOC degradation. Yang et al. (2022) noted the negative priming effect of biochar application in sandy clay loam soil and sandy soil. At the end of the incubation period, adding biochar that had been pyrolyzed at 300 C, 450 C, or 600 C reduced the quantity of native SOC mineralized in sandy clay loam soil by 12%, 15%, and 13%, respectively (180 days). 19.6.2 Increasing soil C stock can reduce soil surface albedo Surface albedo is the fraction of incoming solar radiation reflected into space. The sur- face energy balance relies significantly on the albedo of the surface. On the Earth’s surface, the net radiation flux is the total soil heat flux, sensible energy and latent energy. A dis- parity in the world’s energy budget is the primary cause of climate change. Applying bio- char sequestrate C removes CO2 from the atmosphere, increases the SC stock, and mitigates climate change. Although there is no significant direct relationship between soil organic C and albedo, certain practices that aid in SC sequestration can affect the albedo of the soil surface. Biochar application affects the energy budget in several ways. By C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation  19.6 Related favorable impacts of biochar on climate change mitigation 405 collecting C and keeping it out of the atmosphere, they reduce the absorption of solar irra- diance. However, they also influence sun irradiance absorption through their albedo. Biochar is black organic matter, which darkens the soil color and affects the reflectance and soil temperature. Dark soil absorbs light and reflects less light. Biochar shows low reflectivity to radiation, thus reducing the surface soil albedo. Furthermore, the decrease in surface albedo is attributed to lower surface temperature. However, the knowledge and field-level experiments about the influence of biochar on soil surface albedo have not been quantified yet. Zhang et al. (2017) reported that applying biochar 45 and 5 t ha21 year21 decreased the surface albedo significantly compared to the control treatment in maize and wheat crops. Additionally, they noted that as the crop canopy increases the amount of sur- face albedo decreases and vanishes. Applying 30
60 t ha21 biochar to the surface soil decreases the soil surface albedo by 40% compared to the control. Further, they reported that at early and late growing season the albedo value was recorded 0.2 and 0.3 for control treatments, whereas 30
60 t ha21 biochar application recorded 0.08
0.12, that is, 40% reduction. Meyer et al. (2012) reported that biochar application can change the surface albedo and counteract climate change. They reported an annual average albedo reduction value of 0.05 due to application of 30
32 t ha21 of biochar in Germany. Usowicz et al. (2016) reported the effect of biochar from wood off in grassland and fallow in the temper- ate climate of Poland. They found that increasing biochar application reduces the albedo value. Biochar applications at the world scale equivalent to 120 t ha21 reduce negative radiative forcings by 5% for croplands, 11% for grasslands, and 23% overall (Verheijen et al., 2013). 19.6.3 Alteration in plant growth rates after biochar application Biochar promotes plant growth and advancement in numerous ways. The recalcitrance C sources of biochar alter the plant performance, competition and growth. Biochar- amended soil can change the plant community composition by affecting seed germination rate and plant establishment (Voorde et al., 2014). Its unique properties—including its increased surface area, presence of an oxygen-containing functional group, increased CEC, and increased porosity—make it an effective tool for enhancing soil health and crop yields. However, large variation is observed in crop productivity due to biochar application as there is so much heterogeneity in biochar properties, soil, and environmental conditions. Simiele et al. (2022) conducted a study with Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformeto know the effect of biochar application (20% application rates) on plant growth, fruit yield and quality. They reported that biochar increased leaf area by 26% and 36% compared with biochar untreated plants. Additionally, the biochar increased root length, surface area, and root, stem, and leaf biomasses twofold compared to untreated plants. Biochar application also increases the fruit and flower numbers, acidity, lycopene, and solid soluble content. After pyrolysis, biochar modified with HNO3 or HNO3 1 H3PO4 increased the concentra- tions of water-soluble macro and micronutrients and promoted plant growth by improv- ing plant nutrient uptake (Sahin et al., 2017). Application of biochar to agricultural soils can greatly increase plant productivity. In a metaanalysis study, the overall yield response was estimated to be 16.0% 6 1.3% regardless of the biochar or soil circumstances. While C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation 406 19. The use of biochar to reduce carbon footprint: toward net zero emission from agriculture this happened, a significant variance in plant productivity response was seen under vari- ous biochar or soil conditions, ranging from 231.8% to 974% (Dai et al., 2020). Compared to the control, the biochar amendment greatly increased the biomass in maize plant (Qiao-Hong et al., 2014). Applying biochar increased the rice and wheat root, straw and grain biomasses by 3%
19%, 10%
19%, and 10%
16%, respectively compared with nitrogen fertilizer. Further, it improves grain nutrient and physiological use efficiency, by 20%
53% and 38%
230%, respectively (Zhang et al., 2010). 19.7 Conclusion Agricultural and food production systems support the livelihoods of millions of people around the globe. The world has achieved self-sufficiency in food production following the green revolution in the mid-1970s, while keeping this momentum has been challenging due to the increasing scarcity of natural resources, depleting the land’s inherent fertility over time. To overcome the issue, the application of inorganic fertilizers and synthetic che- micals has grown rapidly in last few decades which made our food production system more GHG-intensive and as well as more responsible for global warming. In this scenario, it is necessary to adopt climate-change-adaptive farming practices that, if effective, will lessen the contribution of agriculture to climate change. According to several research studies, biochar application in agricultural fields has been demonstrated to have mitigat- ing effects in field conditions and laboratory incubations. With the addition of biochar, both in the field and the lab, N2O emissions were drastically reduced. Similarly, CO2 emis- sions from paddy fields were reduced by a substantial quantity after biochar application, but it didn’t show mitigating effects while used in upland conditions and laboratory incu- bations. However, biochar treatment reduced CH4 emissions in laboratory incubations, indicating that the effect of biochar on rice fields was not completely predictable. Considering the potential for an increase or decrease in one of the three GHG fluxes as a result of biochar amendments, we find that CO2-C equivalent outputs from rice cultivation are reduced. At the same time, emissions from upland areas are elevated. While there is solid support for promoting the use of biochar in paddy fields as a means to mitigate climate change, upland areas should approach the practice with prudence. These out- comes, nevertheless, are very context-dependent and dependent on variables such as the feedstock used to generate biochar, the pyrolysis temperature, and the application rate. Moreover, our current understanding of the impact of biochar additions on GHG Fluxes is mostly based on brief laboratory incubation, which presents a hurdle because it is unclear what would happen in the long run. Therefore, more extensive, multiregional, multibiome field investigations are needed to advocate using biochar in agricultural land to mitigate climate change and lead us toward net zero emission from agricultural production system. References Abbruzzini, T. F., Moreira, M. Z., de Camargo, P. B., Conz, R. F., & Cerri, C. E. P. (2017). Increasing rates of bio- char application to soil induce stronger negative priming effect on soil organic carbon decomposition. Agricultural Research, 6, 389
398. C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation  References 407 Aguirre-Villegas, H. A., & Larson, R. A. (2017). Evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy manure manage- ment practices using survey data and lifecycle tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 169
179. Amonette, J. E., & Joseph, S. (2009). Characteristics of biochar: Microchemical properties. In S. Lehmann Jand Joseph (Ed.), Biochar for environmental management. (pp. 33
52). London: Earthscan. Arora, P., & Arora, N. K. (2023). COP27: A summit of more misses than hits. Environmental Sustainability,, 1
7. Baronti, S., Alberti, G., Camin, F., Criscuoli, I., Genesio, L., Mass, R.,... Miglietta, F. (2017). Hydrochar enhances growth of poplar for bioenergy while marginally contributing to direct soil carbon sequestration. GCB Bioenergy, 9(11), 1618
1626. Bartocci, P., Bidini, G., Saputo, P., & Fantozzi, F. (2016). Biochar pellet carbon footprint. Chemical. Engineering Transactions, 50, 217
222. Bellarby, J., Tirado, R., Leip, A., Weiss, F., Lesschen, J. P., & Smith, P. (2013). Livestock greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential in Europe. Global Change Biology, 19(1), 3
18. Bhatia, A., Jain, N., & Pathak, H. (2013). Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from Indian rice paddies, agricul- tural soils and crop residue burning. GHGs: Science and Technology, 3(3), 196
211. Carlson, K. M., Gerber, J. S., Mueller, N. D., Herrero, M., MacDonald, G. K., Brauman, K. A.,......... West, P. C. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions intensity of global croplands. Nature Climate Change, 7(1), 63
68. Chan, K. Y., Van Zwieten, L., Meszaros, I., Downie, A., & Joseph, S. (2008). Using poultry litter biochars as soil amendments. Soil Research, 46(5), 437
444. Chaturvedi, S., Singh, S. V., Dhyani, V. C., Govindaraju, K., & Mandal, S. (2021). Characterization, bioenergy value and thermal stability of biochar derived from diverse agriculture and forestry lignocellulosic waste. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-01239-2. Cordeau, S. (2022). Conservation agriculture and agroecological weed management. Agronomy, 12(4), 867. Dai, Y., Zheng, H., Jiang, Z., & Xing, B. (2020). Combined effects of biochar properties and soil conditions on plant growth: A meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 713, 136635. Damert, M., Morris, J., & Guenther, E. (2020). Carbon footprints of organizations and products. Responsible con- sumption and production, 59
72. Don, A., Schumacher, J., & Freibauer, A. (2011). Impact of tropical land-use change on soil organic carbon stock- s
a meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 17(4), 1658
1670. Fang, K., Heijungs, R., & de Snoo, G. R. (2014). Theoretical exploration for the combination of the ecological, energy, carbon, and water footprints: Overview of a footprint family. Ecological Indicators, 36, 508
518. FAO. (2009). The state of food and agriculture. Livestock in balance. Rome: FAO. FAO. (2016). Climate change, agriculture and food security The State of Food and Agriculture 2106 (SOFA), Rome: FAO. ,http://www.fao.org/3/i6030e/I6030E.pdf.. Feng, Y., Xu, Y., Yu, Y., Xie, Z., & Lin, X. (2012). Mechanisms of biochar decreasing methane emission from Chinese paddy soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 46, 80
88. Finkbeiner, M. (2009). Carbon footprinting—opportunities and threats. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14, 91
94. Foley, S. F., Gronenborn, D., Andreae, M. O., Kadereit, J. W., Esper, J., Scholz, D.,......... Crutzen, P. J. (2013). The Palaeoanthropocene
The beginnings of anthropogenic environmental change. Anthropocene, 3, 83
88. Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M.,......... Zaks, D. P. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337
342. Forabosco, F., Chitchyan, Z., & Mantovani, R. (2017). Methane, nitrous oxide emissions and mitigation strategies for livestock in developing countries: A review. South African Journal Of Animal Science, 47(3), 268
280. Gan, Y., Hamel, C., O’Donovan, J. T., Cutforth, H., Zentner, R. P., Campbell, C. A.,......... Poppy, L. (2015). Diversifying crop rotations with pulses enhances system productivity. Scientific Reports, 5(1), 14625. Gerber, P. J., Hristov, A. N., Henderson, B., Makkar, H., Oh, J., Lee, C.,......... Oosting, S. (2013). Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: A review. Animal, 7(s2), 220
234. Goglio, P., Grant, B. B., Smith, W. N., Desjardins, R. L., Worth, D. E., Zentner, R., & Malhi, S. S. (2014). Impact of management strategies on the global warming potential at the cropping system level. Science of the Total Environment, 490, 921
933. Hagemann, N., Joseph, S., Schmidt, H. P., Kammann, C. I., Harter, J., Borch, T.,......... Kappler, A. (2017). Organic coating on biochar explains its nutrient retention and stimulation of soil fertility. Nature Communications, 8(1), 1089. C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation 408 19. The use of biochar to reduce carbon footprint: toward net zero emission from agriculture Hansen, J. (2004). Defusing the global warming time bomb. Scientific American, 290(3), 68
77. Hertwich, E. G., & Peters, G. P. (2009). Carbon footprint of nations: A global, trade-linked analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(16), 6414
6420. Hoang, A. T., Nižetić, S., Olcer, A. I., Ong, H. C., Chen, W. H., Chong, C. T.,......... Nguyen, X. P. (2021). Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on the global energy system and the shift progress to renewable energy: Opportunities, challenges, and policy implications. Energy Policy, 154, 112322. IPCC (2019). Special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Summary for Policy Makers. Cambridge: IPCC. IPCC. (2007).In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller (Eds.), Climate change 2007: The physical science basis (pp. 100
101). Isbell, F., Calcagno, V., Hector, A., Connolly, J., Harpole, W. S., Reich, P. B.,......... Loreau, M. (2011). High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature, 477(7363), 199
202. Jain, N., Bhatia, A., & Pathak, H. (2014). Emission of air pollutants from crop residue burning in India. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 14(1), 422
430. Jones, D. L., Rousk, J., Edwards-Jones, G., DeLuca, T. H., & Murphy, D. V. (2012). Biochar-mediated changes in soil quality and plant growth in a three year field trial. Soil biology and Biochemistry, 45, 113
124. Khalid, A. A., Tuffour, H. O., & Bonsu, M. (2014). Influence of poultry manure and NPK fertilizer on hydraulic prop- erties of a sandy soil in Ghana. International Journal of Scientific Research in Agricultural Sciences, 1(2), 16
22. Kumar, S., Meena, R. S., Datta, R., Verma, S. K., Yadav, G. S., Pradhan, G., Molaei, A., Rahman, G. K. M. M., & Mashuk, H. A. (2020). Legumes for carbon and nitrogen cycling: An organic approach. carbon and nitrogen cycling in soil. In R. Datta, et al. (Eds.), Carbon and Nitrogen Cycling in Soil (pp. 337
375). Singapore: Springer Nature, P: 337
375. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7264-3_10. Kumar, R., Sharma, P., Gupta, R. K., Kumar, S., Sharma, M. M. M., Singh, S., & Pradhan, G. (2020a). Earthworms for eco-friendly resource efficient agriculture. In Kumar, et al. (Eds.), Resources use efficiency in agriculture (pp. 47
84). Singapore: Springer Nature, P. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6953-1_2. Kumawat, A., Bamboriya, S. D., Meena, R. S., Yadav, D., Kumar, A., Kumar, S.,...... Pradhan, G. (2022). Legume-based inter-cropping to achieve crop, soil, and environmental health security. In R. S. Meena, & S. Kumar (Eds.), Advances in legumes for sustainable intensification (pp. 307
328). Elsevier, P-. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85797-0.00005-7. Kweku, D. W., Bismark, O., Maxwell, A., Desmond, K. A., Danso, K. B., Oti-Mensah, E. A.,......... Adormaa, B. B. (2018). Greenhouse effect: Greenhouse gases and their impact on global warming. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 17(6), 1
9. Lal, R. (2006). Enhancing crop yields in the developing countries through restoration of the soil organic carbon pool in agricultural lands. Land Degradation & Development, 17(2), 197
209. Lal, R. (2008). Carbon sequestration in soil. CABI Reviews, 20. (2008). Lal, R. (2018). Digging deeper: A holistic perspective of factors affecting soil organic carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. Global Change Biology, 24(8), 3285
3301. Larsen, H. N., & Hertwich, E. G. (2009). The case for consumption-based accounting of greenhouse gas emissions to promote local climate action. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 791
798. Lawal, H. M., & Girei, H. A. (2013). Infiltration and organic carbon pools under the long term use of farm yard manure and mineral fertilizer. Leng, L., & Huang, H. (2018). An overview of the effect of pyrolysis process parameters on biochar stability. Bioresource Technology, 270, 627
642. Lehmann, J., & Joseph, S. (Eds.) (2015). Biochar for environmental management: Science, technology and implementation. Routledge. Lenzen, M., Wood, R., & Wiedmann, T. (2010). Uncertainty analysis for multi-region input
output models
a case study of the UK’s carbon footprint. Economic Systems Research, 22(1), 43
63. Liu, C., Cutforth, H., Chai, Q., & Gan, Y. (2016). Farming tactics to reduce the carbon footprint of crop cultivation in semiarid areas. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36, 1
16. Liu, Y., Yang, M., Wu, Y., Wang, H., Chen, Y., & Wu, W. (2011). Reducing CH4 and CO2 emissions from water- logged paddy soil with biochar. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 11, 930
939. Li, Z., Zhang, R., Wang, X., Chen, F., Lai, D., & Tian, C. (2014). Effects of plastic film mulching with drip irrigation on N2O and CH4 emissions from cotton fields in arid land. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 152(4), 534
542. C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation  References 409 Lungarska, A., & Chakir, R. (2018). Climate-induced land use change in France: Impacts of agricultural adaptation and climate change mitigation. Ecological Economics, 147, 134
154. La Scala, N., Bolonhezi, D., & Pereira, G. T. (2006). Short-term soil CO2 emission after conventional and reduced tillage of a no-till sugar cane area in southern Brazil. Soil and Tillage Research, 91(1
2), 244
248. Mbow, C., Rosenzweig, C., Barioni, L.G., Benton, T.G., Herrero, M., Krishnapillai, M.,... & Xu, Y. (2019). Food security. Meena, R. S., Kumawat, A., Kumar, S., Prasad, S. K., Pradhan, G., Jhariya, M. K.,... Raj, A. (2022). Effect of legumes on nitrogen economy and budgeting in South Asia. In Meena, R.S., Kumar, S. (Eds.), Advances in legumes for sustainable intensification (pp. 619
638). ,https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85797-0.00001-X.. Meena, R. S., Pradhan, G., Kumar, S., & Lal, R. (2023). Using industrial wastes for rice-wheat cropping and food- energy-carbon-water-economic nexus to the sustainable food system. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 187113756. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113756. Meena, R. S., & Pradhan, G. (2023). Industrial garbage-derived biocompost enhances soil organic carbon fractions, CO2 biosequestration, potential carbon credits, and sustainability index in a rice-wheat ecosystem. Environmental Research116525. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.116525. Meyer, S., Bright, R. M., Fischer, D., Schulz, H., & Glaser, B. (2012). Albedo impact on the suitability of biochar systems to mitigate global warming. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(22), 12726
12734. Millar, N., Urrea, A., Kahmark, K., Shcherbak, I., Robertson, G. P., & Ortiz-Monasterio, I. (2018). Nitrous oxide (N2O) flux responds exponentially to nitrogen fertilizer in irrigated wheat in the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 261, 125
132. Moosmann, L., SiemonS, A., Fallasch, F., Schneider, L., Urrutia, C., Wissner, N., & Oppelt, D. (2021). The COP26 climate change conference. In Glasgow climate change conference, October
November. NASA Earth Observatory (2015). World of change: Global temperatures. Newell, R., Raimi, D., Villanueva, S., & Prest, B. (2021). Global energy outlook 2021: Pathways from Paris (p. 8) Resources for the Future. Ozlu, E., Arriaga, F. J., Bilen, S., Gozukara, G., & Babur, E. (2022). Carbon footprint management by agricultural practices. Biology, 11(10), 1453. Ozlu, E., Sandhu, S. S., Kumar, S., & Arriaga, F. J. (2019). Soil health indicators impacted by long-term cattle manure and inorganic fertilizer application in a corn-soybean rotation of South Dakota. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 11776. Paris, B., Vandorou, F., Balafoutis, A. T., Vaiopoulos, K., Kyriakarakos, G., Manolakos, D., & Papadakis, G. (2022). Energy use in open-field agriculture in the EU: A critical review recommending energy efficiency measures and renewable energy sources adoption. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 158, 112098. Patra N. K., Babu S. C. (2017). Mapping Indian agricultural emissions. ,http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org. in/files/file/.. Paustian, K., Lehmann, J., Ogle, S., Reay, D., Robertson, G. P., & Smith, P. (2016). Climate-smart soils. Nature, 532(7597), 49
57. Permpool, N., Bonnet, S., & Gheewala, S. H. (2016). Greenhouse gas emissions from land use change due to oil palm expansion in Thailand for biodiesel production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 532
538. Pires, M. V., da Cunha, D. A., de Matos Carlos, S., & Costa, M. H. (2015). Nitrogen-use efficiency, nitrous oxide emissions, and cereal production in Brazil: Current trends and forecasts. PLoS One, 10(8), e0135234. Pradhan, G., & Meena, R. S. (2023). Interaction impacts of biocompost on nutrient dynamics and relations with soil biota, carbon fractions index, societal value of CO2 equivalent, and ecosystem services in the wheat-rice farming. Chemosphere139695. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139695. Pradhan, G., & Meena, R. S. (2022). Diversity in the rice
wheat system with genetically modified zinc and iron- enriched varieties to achieve nutritional Security. Sustainability, 14, 9334. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su14159334. Pradhan, G., & Meena, R. S. (2023a). Utilizing waste compost to improve the atmospheric CO2 capturing in the rice-wheat cropping system and energy-cum-carbon credit audit for a circular economy. Science of the Total Environment164572. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164572. Pradhan, G., Meena, R.S., Kumar, S., Jhariya, M.K., Khan, N., Shukla, U.N.,... Kumar, S. (2022). Legumes for eco- friendly weed management in an agroecosystem. In Meena, R.S., Kumar, S. (Eds.), Advances in legumes for sus- tainable intensification (pp. 133
154). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85797-0.00033-1. C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation 410 19. The use of biochar to reduce carbon footprint: toward net zero emission from agriculture Pradhan, G., Meena, R. S., Kumar, S., & Lal, R. (2023). Utilizing industrial wastes as compost in wheat-rice pro- duction to improve the above and below-ground ecosystem services. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 358108704. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2023.108704. Punia, M., Nautiyal, V. P., & Kant, Y. (2008). Identifying biomass burned patches of agriculture residue using sat- ellite remote sensing data. Current Science, 1185
1190. Purakayastha, T. J., Kumari, S., & Pathak, H. (2015). Characterisation, stability, and microbial effects of four bio- chars produced from crop residues. Geoderma, 239, 293
303. Qiao-Hong, Z. H. U., Xin-Hua, P. E. N. G., Huang, T. Q., Zu-Bin, X. I. E., & Holden, N. M. (2014). Effect of biochar addition on maize growth and nitrogen use efficiency in acidic red soils. Pedosphere, 24(6), 699
708. Raj, A., Jhariya, M. K., Banerjee, A., Meena, R. S., Nema, S., Khan, N.,...... Pradhan, G. (2021). Agroforestry a model for ecological sustainability. In M. K. Jhariya, R. S. Meena, A. Raj, & S. N. Meena (Eds.), Natural Resources Conservation and Advances for Sustainability (pp. 289
308). Elsevier, P. Available from https://doi. org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822976-7.00002-8. Rasool, M., Akhter, A., & Haider, M. S. (2021). Molecular and biochemical insight into biochar and Bacillus subti- lis induced defense in tomatoes against Alternaria solani. Scientia Horticulturae, 285, 110203. Rasul, M., Cho, J., Shin, H. S., & Hur, J. (2022). Biochar-induced priming effects in soil via modifying the status of soil organic matter and microflora: A review. Science of the Total Environment, 805, 150304. Ren, F., Zhang, X., Liu, J., Sun, N., Wu, L., Li, Z., & Xu, M. (2017). A synthetic analysis of greenhouse gas emis- sions from manure amended agricultural soils in China. Scientific reports, 7(1), 8123. Robb, D. H., MacLeod, M., Hasan, M. R., & Soto, D. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions from aquaculture: A life cycle assessment of three Asian systems. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper (p. 609). Rojas-Downing, M. M., Nejadhashemi, A. P., Harrigan, T., & Woznicki, S. A. (2017). Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Climate risk management, 16, 145
163. Rondon, M., Ramirez, J. A., & Lehmann, J. (2005). Charcoal additions reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. In Proceedings of the 3rd USDA Symposium on Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry (Vol. 208, pp. 21
24). Baltimore: USDA. Roy, O., Meena, R. S., Kumar, S., Jhariya, M. K., & Pradhan, G. (2021). Assessment of land use systems for CO2 sequestration, carbon credit potential, and income security in Vindhyan Region, India. Land Degradation and Development, 33(4), 670
682. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4181. Sahin, O., Taskin, M. B., Kaya, E. C., Atakol, O. R. H. A. N., Emir, E., Inal, A., & Gunes, A. Y. D. I. N. (2017). Effect of acid modification of biochar on nutrient availability and maize growth in a calcareous soil. Soil Use and Management, 33(3), 447
456. Sarma, B., Farooq, M., Gogoi, N., Borkotoki, B., Kataki, R., & Garg, A. (2018). Soil organic carbon dynamics in wheat-Green gram crop rotation amended with vermicompost and biochar in combination with inorganic fer- tilizers: A comparative study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, 471
480. Schmidt, H. P., Kammann, C., Niggli, C., Evangelou, M. W., Mackie, K. A., & Abiven, S. (2014). Biochar and biochar-compost as soil amendments to a vineyard soil: Influences on plant growth, nutrient uptake, plant health and grape quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 191, 117
123. Sheoran, S., Ramtekey, V., Kumar, D., Kumar, S., Meena, R. S., Kumawat, A.,...... Shukla, U. N. (2022). Grain legumes: Recent advances and technological interventions. In R. S. Meena, & S. Kumar (Eds.), Advances in legumes for sustainable intensification (pp. 507
532). Elsevier, P-. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85797-0.00025-2. Simiele, M., Argentino, O., Baronti, S., Scippa, G. S., Chiatante, D., Terzaghi, M., & Montagnoli, A. (2022). Biochar enhances plant growth, fruit yield, and antioxidant content of cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) in a soilless substrate. Agriculture, 12(8), 1135. Singh, S., Chaturvedi, S., & Datta, D. (2019). Biochar: An eco-friendly residue management approach. Indian Farming, 69(08), 27
29. Singh, B. P., & Cowie, A. L. (2014). Long-term influence of biochar on native organic carbon mineralisation in a low-carbon clayey soil. Scientific reports, 4(1), 3687. Singh, B.R., & Singh, O. (2012). Study of impacts of global warming on climate change: Rise in sea level and disas- ter frequency. Global warming—impacts and future perspective. Singh, S. V., Chaturvedi, S., Dhyani, V. C., & Govindaraju, K. (2020). Pyrolysis temperature influences the charac- teristics of rice straw and husk biochar and sorption/desorption behavior of their biourea composite. Bioresource Technology, 314123674. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123674. C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation  References 411 Singh, S., Chaturvedi, S., Nayak, P., Dhyani, V. C., Nandipamu, T. M., Singh, D. K.,... Govindaraju, K. (2023a). Carbon offset potential of biochar based straw management under rice
wheat system along Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Science of the Total Environment, 897165176. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165176. Singh, S., Luthra, N., Mandal, S., Kushwaha, D. P., Pathak, S. O., Datta, D.,... Pramanik, B. (2023b). Distinct behavior of biochar modulating biogeochemistry of salt-affected and acidic soil: A review. Journal of Soil Science and plant Nutrition. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-023-01370-9. Siva, N. (2022). COP27: A “collective failure.”. The Lancet, 400(10366), 1835. Sivakumar, B. (2011). Global climate change and its impacts on water resources planning and management: Assessment and challenges. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 25, 583
600. Smith, N., & Leiserowitz, A. (2012). The rise of global warming skepticism: Exploring affective image associations in the United States over time. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 32(6), 1021
1032. Song, X., Pan, G., Zhang, C., Zhang, L., & Wang, H. (2016). Effects of biochar application on fluxes of three bio- genic greenhouse gases: A meta-analysis. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 2(2), e01202. Spokas, K. A., & Reicosky, D. C. (2009). Impacts of sixteen different biochars on soil greenhouse gas production. Sundarakani, B., Goh, M., de Souza, R., & Shun, C. (2008). Measuring carbon footprints across the supply chain. Tongwane, M., Mdlambuzi, T., Moeletsi, M., Tsubo, M., Mliswa, V., & Grootboom, L. (2016). Greenhouse gas emissions from different crop production and management practices in South Africa. Environmental Development, 19, 23
35. Tubiello, F. N., Salvatore, M., Rossi, S., Ferrara, A., Fitton, N., & Smith, P. (2013). The FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1), 015009. Usowicz, B., Lipiec, J., Łukowski, M., Marczewski, W., & Usowicz, J. (2016). The effect of biochar application on thermal properties and albedo of loess soil under grassland and fallow. Soil and Tillage Research, 164, 45
51. van de Voorde, T. F., Bezemer, T. M., Van Groenigen, J. W., Jeffery, S., & Mommer, L. (2014). Soil biochar amend- ment in a nature restoration area: Effects on plant productivity and community composition. Ecological Applications, 24(5), 1167
1177. Van Zwieten, L., Kimber, S., Morris, S., Chan, K. Y., Downie, A., Rust, J.,......... Cowie, A. (2010). Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic performance and soil fertility. Plant and Soil, 327, 235
246. Verheijen, F. G., Jeffery, S., van der Velde, M., Penı́žek, V., Beland, M., Bastos, A. C., & Keizer, J. J. (2013). Reductions in soil surface albedo as a function of biochar application rate: implications for global radiative forcing. Environmental Research Letters, 8(4), 044008. Wang, J., Xi, F., Liu, Z., Bing, L., Alsaedi, A., Hayat, T.,......... Guan, D. (2018). The spatiotemporal features of green- house gases emissions from biomass burning in China from 2000 to 2012. Journal of Cleaner Production, 181, 801
808. Weidema, B. P., Thrane, M., Christensen, P., Schmidt, J., & Løkke, S. (2008). Carbon footprint: A catalyst for life cycle assessment? Journal of industrial Ecology, 12(1), 3
6. Wiedmann, T. (2007). Minx. J: A definition of’carbon footprint’. ISA Research Report, 07-01. Woolf, D., Amonette, J. E., Street-Perrott, F. A., Lehmann, J., & Joseph, S. (2010). Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature communications, 1(1), 56. Yang, X., Gao, W., Zhang, M., Chen, Y., & Sui, P. (2014). Reducing agricultural carbon footprint through diversi- fied crop rotation systems in the North China Plain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 131
139. Yue, Q., Xu, X., Hillier, J., Cheng, K., & Pan, G. (2017). Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture: From farm production to food consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 1011
1019. Zhang, A., Cui, L., Pan, G., Li, L., Hussain, Q., Zhang, X.,......... Crowley, D. (2010). Effect of biochar amend- ment on yield and methane and nitrous oxide emissions from a rice paddy from Tai Lake plain, China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 139(4), 469
475. Zhao, Y., Wang, P., Li, J., Chen, Y., Ying, X., & Liu, S. (2009). The effects of two organic manures on soil properties and crop yields on a temperate calcareous soil under a wheat
maize cropping system. European Journal of Agronomy, 31(1), 36
42. Zheng, H., Wang, X., Luo, X., Wang, Z., & Xing, B. (2018). Biochar-induced negative carbon mineralization prim- ing effects in a coastal wetland soil: Roles of soil aggregation and microbial modulation. Science of the Total Environment, 610, 951
960. Zhu, X., Chen, B., Zhu, L., & Xing, B. (2017). Effects and mechanisms of biochar-microbe interactions in soil improvement and pollution remediation: A review. Environmental Pollution, 227, 98
115. Zimmerman, A. R., Gao, B., & Ahn, M. Y. (2011). Positive and negative carbon mineralization priming effects among a variety of biochar-amended soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 43(6), 1169
1179. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.02.005. C. Environmental sustainability and bioremediation View publication stats