Biochar Storage in Agricultural Soils

The Durability of a Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) process refers to the length of time for which CO₂ is removed from the Earth’s atmosphere and cannot contribute to further climate change. This Module details the durability, reversal risks and requirements for storage of carbon as biochar in soil in agricultural soils. This Module is intended for use in conjunction with other Isometric Protocols and Modules, and assumes the following:

• The full quantification of the net tonnes of CO₂e removal for Crediting occurs following the Isometric Biochar Production and Storage Protocol .
• All environmental and social safeguards have been followed according to Section 5 in the Biochar Production and Storage Protocol.

The information and requirements outlined within this Module are based on the best available science at the time of writing. This Module will be reviewed at a minimum every 2 years and/or when there is an update to scientific published literature which would affect net CO₂e removal quantification or the monitoring guidelines outlined in this Module, and/or in line with changes in scientific consensus regarding the durability of biochar in agricultural soils.

This storage module applies to Projects or processes which apply biochar to agricultural land to capture CO₂. Biochar can be applied as pellets or fine-grained biochars. According to the definition by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, agricultural land is defined in this Module as permanent and arable crop land, meadows and pastureland¹.

Projects applying biochar in similar storage environments to agricultural land may be applicable under this Protocol if they receive prior agreement from Isometric. Similar environments may include for example rangelands, urban landscapes or other land on which crops are grown. These Projects must be able to justify fully in the PDD:

• that no land management practice would be undertaken which would cause a risk to storage above that which exists for agricultural soils.
• how adherence to the relevant environmental and social safeguards and local regulation has been considered specifcally for that environment, in accordance with Section 5 of the Isometric Biochar Production and Storage Protocol.

Projects that are explicitly not eligible include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Projects that lead to a sustained net decrease in crop yields.

Soils have the potential to act as a significant carbon Sink, as evidenced by the magnitude of soil organic carbon stocks - which exceed that of plant matter and atmospheric carbon combined². Utilizing this potential will be important for meeting ambitious climate goals, such as those put forth by the IPCC³. Soil organic carbon stocks can be increased by incorporating plant biomass into soil, a common agricultural practice⁴. This can be achieved by incorporating agricultural residues into topsoil, however, the labile nature of this source of organic matter results in CO₂ being released back into the atmosphere on timescales that are too short for meaningful climate change mitigation⁵. As an alternative, charred or pyrolyzed carbon has the potential to contribute similar soil health benefits, with a higher stable carbon fraction in soil over long timescales ^6,7.

Scientific consensus on stability of biochar in storage environments is growing ⁸, but there are still some key areas where further research is needed. While biochar is more stable than non pyrolyzed carbon, the mean residence time (MRT) of biochar will depend on its physical and chemical characteristics prior to application, as well environmental conditions at the storage location⁹. Biochar can mechanically degrade over short timescales following application to soils. This degradation can cause significant changes in biochar physical properties. Degradation primarily affects biochar particle size, and to a lesser extent specific surface area and porosity^10,11. However, these factors are not necessarily indications of biochar decay, and the carbon content of the biochar can remain intact and stably stored despite these variabilities ^12,13.

The MRT of biochar is highly variable, with available literature reporting values ranging over several orders of magnitude ^14,15,16,17. As outlined in Section 3, only biochars which have been characterized with $H/C_{Organic}$ values <0.5 are considered, which provides high confidence that the biochar is stable on crediting time horizons of at least 200 years. Biochar that is durably stored is defined under this Module as biochar which is stable in soils after at least 200 years have elapsed.

This Module describes how the requirements in Section 3 should be used to quantify the number of credits that are issued for a Project applying biochar to soil. It also includes details of the environmental conditions that must be met and documented in the Project Design Document (PDD) to ensure that biochar-C is stably sequestered in surface land applications for at least 200 years.

Due to the rapid mechanical degradation of biochar in agricultural soils, efforts to directly measure and observe decay of biochar in soils, for example through changes in Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) stocks, are currently very challenging. Spectroscopic techniques such as near- and mid-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS/MIRS), coupled with comprehensive reference databases, show potential for distinguishing biochar-C from other SOC fractions¹⁸. However, these databases are currently limited in scope, require further verification, have a high cost, and are not well-suited for routine analysis. Therefore, quantification of the durability of biochar according to the current best available science must focus on the use of rigorous characterization of the biochar resulting from pyrolysis to calculate the fraction of biochar that is stable beyond the desired crediting time horizon. This should be coupled with conservative treatment of the Uncertainty associated with that calculation (see Section 6.5 of the Biochar Production and Storage Protocol).

This Module addresses storage site conditions and quantification of $CO_2e_{stored}$ for biochar storage in soils. For more information on pyrolysis conditions and biochar characterization, please refer to Sections 9 and 10 of the Biochar Production and Storage Protocol.

It is recommended that guidance from the Internal Biochar Initiative (IBI) [^63] is followed on best practice for biochar spreading.

Maintaining agricultural productivity is critical to the environmental and social sustainability of CDR projects. The Project Proponent must document how the project will monitor agricultural productivity and soil quality, including which productivity and soil characteristics will be tested and the frequency of testing. If justified, the Project Proponent may use proxy variables in lieu of direct testing or measurements. If productivity or soil quality are demonstrated or anticipated to be adversely affected, the Project Proponent must complete the following:

• The Project Proponent must collaborate with land managers or owners to implement soil management practices that maintain or enhance soil quality. Examples of such practices include regenerative agriculture, such as diversifying crop rotation and utilizing cover crops.

• The Project Proponent must provide technical support, training and resources to help farmers adapt to any changes in soil conditions due to the CDR project. This support could include advice on changes to soil amendments and sustainable farming practices.

• When agricultural residues are used in projects, documentation of characterization of biomass must be provided in accordance with the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module to demonstrate impact on nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) cycles. Pre-treatment of biochars is recommended prior to application where charging of nutrients may be necessary to ensure maintenance of crop yields.

Crop yields can be reported on an annual basis. Crop yield for the project area can be evidenced using historical data from farms directly, farming cooperatives and or public databases. In the case that a sustained (> 3 years) net crop decrease is reported then Isometric may request additional soil analysis to be conducted consistent with requirements in Section 4.1.2.1.

As outlined in the Biochar Production and Storage Protocol, there are some potential risks to environmental and human health associated with biochar composition, for example:

• Heavy metals, including potassium and phosphorus that may impact soil health and soil amendment properties (reduced fertilizer needs); and
• Environmental impacts such as soil contamination for heavy metals and any POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants).

Project Proponents must outline in the PDD what legal and regulatory requirements their Project adheres to in terms of environmental risks. In the absence of regulation on the following parameters, Projects must adhere to safe limits associated with the upper bounds set for the following by the World Biochar Certificate (WBC)⁵ for storage of biochar in agricultural soils:

• Heavy metals, including Pb, Cd, Cu, Ni, Hg, Zn, Cr, As; and
• Organic contaminants, including PAHs, Benzo(a)pyrene, PCBs, PCDD/F.

Methods of measurement for these parameters should be outlined in full in the PDD adhering to the sampling guidance and monitoring frequency requirements set out in this Storage Module. Heavy metals, PBCs and PCDD/F measurements should adhere to the same sampling guidance and monitoring frequency included in Table 2 for PAHs set by the WBC.

Biochar properties like the pH, porosity¹⁹, cation exchange capacity (CEC) or nutrient retention properties (related to surface charge characteristics) could impact agricultural soils and resulting crop yields. In addition to carbon sequestration potential, the application of biochar to agricultural soils might have several co-benefits, including, but not limited to, the following:

• Remediation of environmental pollutants^20,21;
• Decreased soil compaction²²;
• Increased soil moisture²²;
• Decreased bioavailability of heavy metals²³;
• Increased crop productivity and quality^23,24;
• Increased microbial activity ²⁵;
• Increased nutrient content ²⁶; and
• Potential decreased reliance on fertilizers could reduce the release of pollutants from fertilisers ²⁷.

Project Proponents may choose to report in the PDD any co-benefits from the list above related to soil health and quality that are a result of their Project activity. In particular, the crop rotation, reported crop yields^28,29, soil quality (e.g. pH, nutrient and moisture contents) and fertilizer use³⁰ may be reported in the PDD to demonstrate evidence of co-benefits.

This Section provides the requirements for the characterization of biochar for durable storage. Durability refers to the length of time for which CO₂ is removed from the Earth's atmosphere. The durability of biochar will depend on its physical and chemical characteristics as well as the storage site conditions^{31, 32, 33}. This Section will provide requirements and guidance for characterizing the physical and chemical properties of biochar to determine if the material is eligible for crediting under this Protocol.

Biochar physical and chemical characteristics will be informed by the biomass feedstock type and pyrolysis conditions. This section will not set requirements or guidelines for biomass feedstock eligibility or pyrolysis conditions. Please refer to the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module and Section 9 of this Protocol for guidance and discussion on these two topics.

Some of the required measurements in this Section are associated with minimum or maximum thresholds for eligibility for crediting by Isometric. Other measurements may be required but have no associated eligibility threshold. Some measurements may not be required but this Protocol strongly recommends that the Project Proponent measure and report these values to facilitate scientific advances in biochar durability in soil. Analytical methods provided are examples of eligible methodologies but are not meant to indicate the only acceptable methodologies. The methodology or analytical technique used for each measurement must be stated in the PDD.

Biochar must be characterized prior to application to ensure environmental safety and suitability for CO₂ removal.

The analyses described in this section regarding the physical composition of biochar are recommended for the purposes of information gathering given the nascency of biochar durability quantification. Physical properties of biochar may affect the evolution of biochar in soil³⁴, however there is not yet any evidence that the physical properties of biochar would materially affect its durability on the time horizon considered for crediting. While a significant body of research exists on biochar application to soil, some uncertainty regarding the long-term impact of biochar on soil health, agricultural productivity, and albedo^{35, 36} still exists. As such, the following analyses of biochar’s physical characteristics are recommended; however, no specific eligibility thresholds will be applied.

Table 1: Recommended Measurements of Biochar physical properties

The following analyses regarding the chemical composition of biochar will be used to assess the reactivity potential of biochar-C in different storage environments. Some of these measurements will be used in the quantification of CO₂e_stored , as outlined in Section 4. The required and recommended measurements listed below investigate multiple mechanisms of reactivity (or prevention of), including aromaticity and aromatic condensation, functional groups, and volatility. The redundancy of characterizing reactivity potential via different mechanisms serves to reduce the uncertainty surrounding the durability of biochar, and provides multiple indicators of confidence that durability will exceed the crediting time horizon.

Table 2: Recommended and Required Measurements of Biochar chemical properties

A note on PAH requirement

It is required to measure PAH as outlined in Table 2 and Section 2.2, unless it can be demonstrated that stringent risk mitigation has been carried out. This would include pre-agreeing the risk mitigation with Isometric and detailing this in the PDD.

Risk mitigation may include the following:

• Demonstrating a sufficiently high pyrolysis temperature to ensure thermal cracking of PAHs
• Reactor design choices such as:
  • Increased reactor residence time
  • Testing to show a thermal destruct unit removes PAHs to negligible levels during pyrolysis, coupled with evidence that those operating conditions for pyrolysis are maintained to remove the need for testing of PAHs
• Evidence of how post-pyrolysis treatment of biochar removes PAHs

For the required measurements in Table 2, samples should be taken using the same sampling regimes outlined in Section 8.3.1 of the Biochar Production and Storage Protocol for measuring carbon content.

A batch associated with any one project may have a unique history or set of characteristics that could require individual consideration for recommended measurements. Feedstock characteristics and pyrolysis conditions will influence biochar homogeneity. These include, but are not limited to; the biomass feedstock type and particle size distribution, pyrolysis temperature and reactor type. As such, the sampling plan specified in Section 8.3.1 of the Biochar Production and Storage Protocol takes a conservative approach to sampling with enough frequency to capture the impacts of any heterogeneity in biochar. These considerations include, but are not limited to, biomass feedstock type and particle size distribution, pyrolysis temperature, reactor type, etc. The project proponent must include all relevant details of their sampling plan, including the number and frequency of sampling and analysis and clear justification of their sampling choice, in the PPD document, ensuring compliance with the requirements outlined in Section 8.3.1 of the Biochar Production and Storage Protocol.

To ensure representative sampling, Project Proponents should follow appropriate sampling guidelines outlined in relevant standard procedures. Composite samples must be divided into a minimum of three representative replicates per batch (although higher replication is encouraged), for laboratory analysis, to allow estimation of the mean and standard deviation and detection of potential outliers.

It is a requirement that all Projects demonstrate the degree of homogeneity within a single Storage or Production Batch. This may include sampling across horizontal and vertical dimensions of a Production or Storage Batch to account for particle sorting that may occur during processing and transportation, as outlined in Section 8.3.1 of the Biochar Production and Storage Protocol “Minimum number of samples per Batch”. It is the responsibility of Project Proponents to undertake these routine batch characterizations of the biochar utilized within a Crediting Project and detail these in full in the PDD. All projects are required to provide a detailed description of how the chosen sampling plan addresses any heterogeneity that might be present within the batch, in the PDD.

The Project Proponent is required to report the analytical laboratory/laboratories that have been utilized for biochar analysis and characterization. It is the responsibility of the Project Proponent to ensure that the chosen analytical facilities are reputable and conduct characterization techniques to the required standards indicated within this Protocol. A qualified laboratory is evidenced by accreditation to ISO 17025 or equivalent standards for laboratory quality management for the specific test method.

It is recommended that Project Proponents should utilize accredited analytical services such as UKAS, MCERTS, DWTS, and ISO whenever feasible. Where a Project Proponent utilizes laboratory facilities within an academic institution, or a non-accredited commercial laboratory, periodic external validation must be undertaken with an accredited facility. The frequency of these external checks will vary by project and analytical procedure, and will be agreed with Isometric on a case-by-case basis.

Laboratories must complete standard quality assurance procedures on a schedule in accordance with their quality management plans and accreditation requirements to include:

• Instrumentation calibrations and analysis of calibration standards or certified reference materials;
• Analysis of technical replicates; and
• Analysis of blanks (where possible and appropriate)

Project Proponents are required to report calibration records from analytical facilities to the relevant Validation and Verification Body (VVB) when submitting biochar characterization data. Projects are also required to outline specific analytical checks that have been carried out to maintain data quality, with specific reference to the relevant certified reference materials (CRM) used by the utilized laboratory facility.

Characterization data should be validated through set quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) criteria within all crediting programs. All projects are required to report their QA/QC processes within the PDD, in accordance with the requirements of this Protocol. As part of QA/QC project proponents are required to clearly describe analytical checks (including technical replicates, blanks and analytical standards checks) and calibration procedures.

Project Proponents are required and are responsible for the delivery of biochar characterization data to a project’s VVB. Although a Project Proponent is expected to carry out characterization data externally at an accredited facility, it is the responsibility of the Project Proponent to deliver data that is accurate and externally verifiable. Submitted data reports are required to include results of all standards to verify data quality. Project Proponents are required to maintain data records for a minimum of 5 years following the date of data collection. It is also recommended that sample archiving should be treated similarly, with a representative, specified weight of sample (e.g. 100 g) archived under specified conditions (e.g. dried) for a minimum of 5 years, in case re-analysis of these, or additional parameters are required.

Project Proponents are required to report data such that the data analysis methods used are easily identified, verified and replicated. This Protocol requires that any data reports include the raw data from which any data analysis/reduction was performed, including standards and replicate measurements. A summary containing information on analytical uncertainty, number of samples taken, standards used and number of standard runs, standard deviation and percentage error on the standards must also be included. This may, for example, take the form of a spreadsheet containing four sheets:

• Summary sheet detailing metadata:
  • Number of samples run;
  • Analytical uncertainty;
  • Standards used;
  • Number of standards run;
  • Standard deviation; and
  • Percentage error on standards.
• Reduced data sheet (data summary);
• Data processing sheet (if applicable; e.g. processing of ICP-MS data); and
• Raw data.

There are two options for calculating the fraction of durable biochar ($F_{durable}$) in this Module. Option 1 results in credits issued at 200 year durability, and Option 2 results in credits issued at 1,000 year durability.

In either case, the formula to calculate CO₂e_stored is:

$$CO_2e_{stored} = C_{biochar} \times m_{biochar} \times F_{durable} \times \frac{44}{12}$$

Equation 1

Where

• $C_{biochar}$ is the carbon content of the biochar (empirical).
• $m_{biochar}$ is the dry mass of biochar applied.
• $F_{durable}$ is the fraction of durable biochar that remains in the soil for the full duration of the crediting timeline (i.e. either 200 or 1,000 years), and can be credited under this Module.
• $\frac{44}{12}$ is the mass fraction of carbon dioxide and elemental carbon.

Measurement of Carbon Content

See Section 8.3.1 of the Biochar Production and Storage Protocol for full guidelines on measurement of biochar carbon content, $C_{biochar}$.

Measurement of Mass of biochar applied

See Section 8.3.1.1 of the Biochar Production and Storage Protocol for full guidelines on measurement of mass of biochar applied, $m_{biochar}$.

Calculation of $F_{durable}$

Calculation of $F_{durable}$ is carried out differently in Option 1 (200 year durability) and Option 2 (1,000 year durability). Project Proponents must choose which quantification framework (Option 1, or Option 2, outlined in full below) they wish to use for crediting their Project. Option 1 and Option 2 cannot be used in conjunction with one another, or in combination. The choice of quantification framework and corresponding durability associated must be clearly outlined in the PDD.

Option 1: 200 year durability

The quantification framework for determining the CO₂e_stored for 200-year durability is based on an extrapolation of the data in Woolf et al. (2021)⁴⁵. The calculation of $F_{durable}$ requires two inputs: soil temperature ($T_{soil}$) and the $H/C_{organic}$ ratio. The formula to calculate $F_{durable}$ is:

$$F_{durable} =1 -[ c + (a+b \times ln(T_{soil})) \times H/C_{organic}]$$

Equation 2

Where

• $F_{durable}$ is the fraction of carbon remaining in durable storage.
• $c$, $a$, and $b$ are estimated parameters based on an analysis of the data of Woolf (2021), described in more detail below.
• $T_{soil}$ is the average annual temperature of the soil where the biochar is stored (°C).
• $H/C_{Organic}$ is the molar hydrogen-organic carbon ratio.

The parameters a, b, and c for the time horizon of 200 years are estimated using data available in the appendix of Woolf et al. (2021). Parameters theoretically could be recalculated for longer or shorter time horizons for crediting according to the following method. The coefficients a, b and c are calculated using 1 standard deviation below the mean which will result in a more conservative estimation of the decay function. The parameters are estimated using a two-stage regression analysis. First, a linear quantile regression of the non-durable portion ($1 - F_{durable}$) on $H/C_{Organic}$ is conducted for each unique soil temperature in the Woolf et al. (2021) data. Quantile regression allows for the estimation of the $1 - F_{durable}$ associated with a durability value that is in the 17th percentile of the durability distribution, conditional on the $H/C_{Organic}$ and $T_{soil}$ of the biochar⁴⁶. The estimated intercepts from this regression are regressed on a constant to obtain parameter c. The estimated $H/C_{Organic}$ coefficients from this regression are then regressed against the natural logarithm of soil temperature in a linear regression to obtain parameters a and parameter b, the effect of a change in $ln(T_{soil})$ on the relationship between $1 - F_{durable}$, and $H/C_{Organic}$, respectively. The following table (Table 1) provides these parameters for 200-year durability.

Table 3: Parameters calculated for Equation 2 for the time horizon of 200 years for crediting, using data available in the appendix of Woolf et al. (2021)⁴⁵. The parameters (a, b and c) stated in Table 3, are fixed, conservative coefficients, calculated from the decay data presented in the appendix of Woolf et al., (2021).

Sampling guidelines for measurement of average annual soil temperature $(T_{soil})$:

• Project Proponents can choose to Baseline their own annual soil temperature measurements, in order to ensure that the data used in the calculation for crediting comes from direct, project-specific measurements. These should be carried out according to ISO 4974:2023⁴⁷, or equivalent, and justified in the PDD. A dataset of measurements for $T_{soil}$ taken for the year preceding crediting, and the average $T_{soil}$ calculated from that dataset, should be included in the PDD. Project Proponents should report the average of monthly soil temperature measurements from every application site. At least 10 measurements must be taken per site-month.
• If no baselining data for soil temperature is available, a justifiable $T_{soil}$ for calculation of the durable fraction of biochar should be obtained from a global database of soil temperatures such, as Lembrechts et al. (2022)^{33, 48}, or equivalent. Project Proponents should identify which region their Project best aligns with from the global dataset, and justify both the dataset used and the average annual soil temperature chosen in the PDD. Air temperatures should not be used as a proxy for average annual soil temperatures. While average air and soil temperatures are correlated, there is evidence that mean annual soil temperatures can be 2-4^oC warmer than mean annual air temperatures ^{49, 50}.

Option 2: 1,000 year durability

Project Proponents seeking to make claims of durability on the time horizon of 1,000 years should report a set of at least 500 measurements of R₀, calculated at the maceral-level, for each sample of their biochar (as outlined in Section 3 of this Module). Batches that adopt this measurement approach can be credited for the fraction of their biochar which passes the 2% R₀ benchmark, for which there is evidence of higher durability, as outlined in Sanei et al. (2024). The histogram of the R₀ values should submitted at the point of project verification for this crediting option. While biochar passing the benchmark of R₀ = 2% could be considered permanent¹⁰, peer-reviewed research further supporting the work of Sanei et al. (2024)^{42, 17, 8} has been published to validate the experimental work undertaken in that study providing higher confidence in these claims. We take a conservative approach here to how biochar durability is credited. The fraction of biochar credited should be 1 standard deviation below the mean. Therefore, $F_{durable}$ must be calculated as:

$$F_{durable} = S- \sqrt{\frac{S*(1-S)}{N}}$$

Equation 3

Where

• $S$ is the fraction of samples passing the 2% R₀ benchmark
• $N$ is the number of samples taken per batch

Quantification of biochar storage for crediting in agricultural soils will be updated in future versions of this Module in line with the best available science as more research in peer-reviewed literature is published.

Field management practices affect CO₂ removal both directly and indirectly^{51, 52, 53, 35}. For example, irrigation could significantly impact both moisture and pH, and soil moisture has been shown to have an impact on biochar degradation rate¹⁴. Furthermore, soil tillage can lead to increased carbon flux in the topsoil³⁶, which can affect soil organic carbon stocks⁵⁴. The information for each field should be submitted with the GHG statement. Field management information includes:

• Irrigation schedule
• Irrigation source
• Tillage practice
• Fertilizer usage
• Fertilizer composition
• Crop type and rotation
• Pre-deployment, deployment, and post-deployment monitoring

This section outlines the monitoring approach that Project Proponents should take in Crediting Projects. Projects should ensure that biochar application does not meaningfully change field management practices in a manner that results in additional CO₂ e emissions.

Where applicable, analytical methods should be cross-referenced with an appropriate standard (e.g., ISO, EN, BSI, ASTM, EPA) or standard operating procedure (SOP). Where a project utilizes a non-standardized methodology or SOP for the determination of a listed parameter, the Project Proponent should outline the relevant method within the PDD.

A baseline of soil condition (i.e., before biochar application) is recommended to both (i) verify CO₂ sequestration through project activities, and (ii) facilitate monitoring of potential environmental impacts. Project Proponents are therefore recommended to collect baseline soil samples prior to spreading biochar. Baseline samples are collected to quantify heterogeneity in the soil characteristics most relevant to biochar CDR, including pH, soil texture, soil moisture and soil organic carbon (SOC). It is recommended that the time of year of sampling is kept consistent if repeated sampling is going to take place year to year because SOC stocks can vary with season. The overall sampling procedure to account for spatial heterogeneity must be reported and justified in the PDD.

To minimize sampling bias, Project Proponents should collect soil samples to the maximum tillage depth or 30cm, whichever is deeper. While random sampling routines are generally preferred, the Project Proponent may use alternative sampling routines, provided these are documented and justified in the PDD. Where baseline measurements are taken, samples should be analyzed for the properties outlined in Table 3 below.

Table 4: Parameters for measurement to be used during Project baseline establishment.

The following aspects of biochar application must be included in the PDD (in addition to all others listed in this Module), in order to verify that biochar spreading on agricultural soils has occurred.

Project boundaries

Project Proponents must report the boundaries of the project area. This could be reported using project area maps with clearly demarcated boundaries, the GPS coordinates for those boundaries, or the GPS coordinates for the sites at which biochar is applied. Alternatively, Project Proponents may choose to use geo-tagged and dated photo files and/or video files to provide evidence of biochar being spread.

Soil temperature variation

Limits on project boundaries must be drawn up to the point where variations in soil temperature do not materially impact the durability of the stored carbon for Project Proponents looking to credit under the quantification framework outlined in Option 1 (see Section 4).

• Soil temperature variation within the stated Project boundaries must not exceed 1^oC above the temperature used for carbon removal quantification. Soil temperature variation within the stated Project boundaries should be reported as average annual soil temperature values, with supporting information on the source and mode of collection for those soil temperature values to be included.
• If the soil temperature variation exceeds 1^oC then the Project must be further divided, or the most conservative temperature value within the project area must be used for the crediting quantification. Details on the size of project boundary chosen for data on the average soil temperature and the distribution of soil temperature within the project boundaries should be outlined in the PDD.
• Additionally, for projects that wish to specify project boundaries spanning large project areas, for example counties or states, in order to demonstrate that it is reasonable for the same carbon removal quantification to be used across large areas, justification should be provided that land management practices are consistent across that project area, and it may be necessary for the VVB and/or Isometric to request additional justification of how sites have been selected to fit within this project boundary according to Section 5.2.

Application rate

Application rate may be optimized for other soil health co-benefits, such as moisture retention, increased nutrient management/regulation and soil organic carbon stocks, but there is no evidence that biochar application rate has a significant effect on biochar-C stability. The application rate paired with the project boundaries must be used to confirm total mass of biochar applied. An average application rate for the area of biochar spreading may be used, provided that justification for this average rate is agreed with Isometric in advance, and is detailed in the PDD.

As outlined in Section 2.5.9 of the Isometric Standard, the Buffer Pool is a mechanism used to insure against Reversal risks that may be observable and attributable to a particular project through monitoring. Based on present understanding, reversals in Biochar storage will not be directly observable with measurements and attributable to a particular project. Projects crediting against this protocol are credited conservatively to account for degradation of labile pools of biochar within the relevant crediting time horizon. Projects adhering to the requirements of this Module are categorized as having a Very Low Risk Level of Reversal according to the Isometric Standard Risk Assessment Questionnaire. The Buffer Pool corresponding to this lowest risk score is 2% and is intended as an additional precaution against unknowns.

Following the Section 2.5.9 of the Isometric Standard, storage uncertainty for open systems is primarily accounted within the removal quantification framework. For more details on Reversals, refer to Section 2.5.9 and 5.6 of the Isometric Standard.

Beyond biomass feedstock type and physical and chemical characteristics of biochar, biochar durability is affected by environmental and anthropogenic factors. The following conditions may contribute to a decrease in the expected durability of biochar storage in agricultural soils. Project Proponents are advised to consider sites with minimal interference from the following factors.

Environmental factors

• Climate:
  • Extreme fluctuations in soil temperature, such as freeze-thaw events: effects as outlined above on soil temperature.
  • Extreme fluctuations in soil moisture, such as wet and dry seasons: effects as outlined above on soil moisture.
  • Precipitation and weather events: High soil moisture decreases biochar MRTs¹⁴
• Soil conditions:
  • Soil texture: fine and coarse grained biochars are more likely to have larger impacts on soil characteristics than medium grained⁵⁵.
  • Mean soil temperature: higher soil temperatures increase degaradation speed of biochar¹⁴.
  • pH: basic soil is more conducive to microbial growth, and therefore decreases biochar MRTs^{34, 56}.
  • Nutrient availability: higher nutrient availability in soil could potentially impact microbial activity, as outlined below.
  • Water management (e.g. irrigation source and schedule)
• Biology:
  • Root growth: Higher root growth could conceivably accelerate the physical breakdown of biochar particles in soil, as root growth is known to play a role in mechanical degradation of rocks and minerals during the weathering cycle.
  • Microbial activity: microbial activity spurs biochar degradation. Microbial activity can be increased by incorporation of labile organic matter, such as fresh agricultural residues⁵⁶.

Anthropogenic factors

All of the following activities taking place on agricultural land may impact the environmental factors above, and therefore impact biochar degradation.

• Irrigation source and schedule: as above, high soil moisture decreases biochar MRTs.
• Fertilizer use and composition: this could alter nutrient availability in soils, and by extension, microbial activity.
• Crop type and rotation: similar to the above discussion on root growth, different crops may interfere with mechanical breakdown processes, soil pH and/or soil moisture content.
• Land management practices such as tilling, plowing, seeding, and harvesting.

Project Proponents should outline in the PDD a full description of site conditions, including justification of how site suitability was chosen bearing in mind the factors listed above.

Isometric would like to thank following contributors to this Module:

• Konstantina Stamouli, Ph.D.
• Sophie Gill, Ph.D.
• Emma Marsland
• Adam Ward, Ph.D.
• Marya Matlin-Wainer
• Matthew Gammans, Ph.D.

Isometric would like to thank following contributors to this Module:

• Meredith Barr, Ph.D. (London South Bank University)
• Segun Oladele, Ph.D. (University of Lincoln)

This document is a companion to the Isometric Biochar Storage in Agricultural Soils Module V1.0, providing supporting information regarding the rationale and factors considered when determining the requirements of the Module, specifically relating to the 200 year and 1,000 year durability crediting frameworks. This document should be read in conjunction with the Module and is provided as guidance. Should there be any discrepancy or inconsistency between this companion document and the Module itself, the requirements of the Module will prevail.

There are two options for calculating the fraction of durable biochar ($F_{durable}$) in the Isometric Biochar Storage in Agricultural Soils Module, which is then used to calculate the number of credits issued by Isometric. These are outlined in Section 4.1 of the Module.

The options for calculation of $F_{durable}$ are as follows:

• Option 1: 200 year durability: $F_{durable}$ calculated using $H/C_{Organic}$ and $T_{soil}$⁴⁵
• Option 2: 1,000 year durability: $F_{durable}$ calculated using a histogram of Random Reflectance (R₀) measurements

Option 1 estimates the amount of biochar that will remain stable beyond 200 years using regressions to estimate the decay rate, assuming all biochar will eventually degrade. This approach can potentially underestimate the fraction of biochar which remains durably stored over long timeframes.

Option 2 relies on new work published this year⁴², which pioneered the use of R₀ to measure the quantity of inertinite contained in the biochar. Inertinite is the stable fraction of biochar and has been shown to have a durability of >1,000 years, which indicates that there will be a certain portion of biochar (present as inertinite) that will not degrade within that time frame. Additional research on the use of random reflectance measurement is due to be published later this year. This will be reviewed and any necessary updates will be included in a future version of this Module.

The Module offers these two approaches to reflect the latest scientific advances and provide flexibility for suppliers to either credit at 1,000 year durability or continue crediting existing projects at a lower durability of 200 years.

If you are interested in diving into the detail of how these frameworks compare to one another quantitatively at 200 and 1,000 year durability, please refer to Table A1 and Table A2. These tables use example data from published literature to illustrate how the two options estimate the fraction of durable biochar ($F_{durable}$) for crediting. Please note: crediting using R₀ is not allowed under the module for 200 year durability, and crediting using $H/C_{Organic}$ is not allowed under the Module for 1,000 year durability - these values are included in the tables for reference only.

There are three key takeaways from this data shown in Table A1 and Table A2:

(1) Crediting using $H/C_{Organic}$ at 1,000 year durability would underestimate durable fraction compared to using R₀. This is because the R₀ measurement directly characterizes the biochar material, and can quantify the portion of inertinite (stable fraction), whereas the $H/C_{Organic}$ is a modeled approach which assumes a considerable volume of the biochar will eventually decay, therefore leaning towards underestimating the fraction of durable biochar.

(2) Using the Random Reflectance (R₀) for crediting at 200 years could lead to underestimation of credits, as there will be a percentage of labile carbon that might not degrade within the 200 year framework, and accounting only for the inertinite fraction discounts the percentage of semi-inertinite that can persist. The example data shows that the R₀ estimates are the same for 200 and 1,000 year durability.

For crediting at 200 year durability the Module relies on the $H/C_{Organic}$ quantification. Whereas for 1,000 year durability the Module relies on a statistically significant number of R₀ measurements. For 200 year durability crediting, this is required because in theory, some samples could have a low $H/C_{Organic}$ ratio but only a small portion of inertinite. Mathematical relationships between $H/C_{Organic}$ and R₀ have not been published as of the time of writing. This Module will be updated and sampling requirements adjusted as appropriate once additional research in this area is available.

(3) We have included the mean R₀ value for reference in row 3 of the tables. This is to demonstrate the difference in estimations of $F_{durable}$ when using the mean % R₀ value compared to the inertinite which is below the 2% inertinite benchmark. This method is not included in this Module because the mean % R₀ value does not accurately represent the inertinite distribution within the biochar sample. This could lead to either underestimating or overestimating the durability, as shown in the table. Depending on the biochar composition, underestimating biochar’s durability could be possible where the mean % R₀ is used and is below the 2% R₀ benchmark. The latter would assume that the entire biochar is not inertinite, leading to a $F_{durable}$ of 0 (row 4) in comparison to Option 1.

Table A1: 200 year durability. Option 1 from Isometric’s Biochar Storage in Agricultural Soils Module for an average temperature of 14.9^oC, was used with biochar data from Sanei et al. (2024)^{42, 57} to calculate the $F_{durable}$ for 200 years. Data for Option 2, in the form of a histogram of Random Reflectance (R₀) measurements^{42, 57} were also used as comparison for the 200 year timeline. Reference values of feedstock, $H/C_{Organic}$ and reaction temperature have also been included in Table 1 below. Any changes in the durable fraction when using the two different methods are captured in the final column. The difference has been calculated using the % inertinite from the histogram value (column 6 - row 2) resulting in an $F_{durable}$ of 0.85 . Any changes in the durable fraction when using the two different methods are captured in the final column (difference has been calculated using the % inertinite from the histogram value - column 6). Two additional samples, from different feedstocks, have been included in rows 4 and 5 to demonstrate the overestimation and underestimation potential.

Table A2: 1,000 year durability. A modified version of Option 1 was applied, using relevant regression coefficients⁴⁵ for the 1000 year timeline and for an average temperature of 14.9^oC, calculated with biochar data from Sanei et al. (2024)^{42, 57} to estimate $F_{durable}$ for 1,000 years, shown in Table 2 below. Data for Option 2 in the form of a histogram of Random Reflectance (R₀) measurements^{42, 57} were also used as comparison for the 1000 year timeline. Any changes in the durable fraction when using the two different methods are captured in the final column (difference has been calculated using the % inertinite from the histogram value - column 6). Two additional samples, from different feedstocks, have been included in rows 4 and 5 to demonstrate the overestimation and underestimation potential.

1. Food and Agriculture Organization, Arable and Permanent Cropland Area (2007). https://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/methodology_sheets/land/arable_cropland_area.pdf. ↩

2. Lehmann, J., & Kleber, M. (2015). The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature, 528(7580), 60-68. ↩ ↩²

3. Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Slade,R., Khourdajie, A., R. van Diemen, McCollum, D., Pathak, M., Some, S., Vyas, P., Fradera, R., Belkacemi, M., Hasija, A., Lisboa, G., Luz, S., Malley, J. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926 ↩

4. Chenu, C., Angers, D. A., Barré, P., Derrien, D., Arrouays, D., & Balesdent, J. (2019). Increasing organic stocks in agricultural soils: Knowledge gaps and potential innovations. Soil and Tillage Research, 188, 41-52. ↩ ↩²

5. WBC (2023): World Biochar Certificate – Guidelines for a Sustainable Production of Biochar and its Certification.' Carbon Standards International, Frick, Switzerland, (http://www.european-biochar.org), version 1.0 from 15th September 2023 ↩ ↩² ↩³

6. Woolf, D., Amonette, J., Street-Perrott, F. et al. (2010) Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change . Nat Commun 1, 56. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1053 ↩

7. Smith, S. M., Geden, O., Gidden, M. J., Lamb, W. F., Nemet, G. F., Minx, J. C., Buck, H., Burke, J., Cox, E., Edwards, M. R., Fuss, S., Johnstone, I., Müller-Hansen, F., Pongratz, J., Probst, B. S., Roe, S., Schenuit, F., Schulte, I., Vaughan, N. E. (2024) The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal 2024 - 2nd Edition. DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/F85QJ ↩ ↩²

8. Chiaramonti, D., Lehmann, J., Berruti, F. et al. (2024) Biochar is a long-lived form of carbon removal, making evidence-based CDR projects possible. Biochar 6, 81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-024-00366-7 ↩ ↩²

9. Azzi, E. S., Li, H., Cederlund, H., Karltun, E., and Sundberg, C. (2024) Modelling Biochar Long-Term Carbon Storage in Soil with Harmonized Analysis of Decomposition Data. Geoderma 441 (January):116761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116761. ↩

10. Wang, H., Nan, Q., Waqas, M., & Wu, W. (2022). Stability of biochar in mineral soils: assessment methods, influencing factors and potential problems. Science of The Total Environment, 806, 150789. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

11. Zhong, Y., Igalavithana, A. D., Zhang, M., Li, X., Rinklebe, J., Hou, D., ... & Ok, Y. S. (2020). Effects of aging and weathering on immobilization of trace metals/metalloids in soils amended with biochar. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 22(9), 1790-1808. ↩

12. Das, O., Mensah, R. A., George, G., Jiang, L., Xu, Q., Neisiany, R. E., ... & Berto, F. (2021). Flammability and mechanical properties of biochars made in different pyrolysis reactors. Biomass and Bioenergy, 152, 106197. ↩ ↩²

13. Shanmugam, V., Sreenivasan, S. N., Mensah, R. A., Försth, M., Sas, G., Hedenqvist, M. S., ... & Das, O. (2022). A review on combustion and mechanical behaviour of pyrolysis biochar. Materials Today Communications, 31, 103629. ↩ ↩²

14. Singh, B. P., Cowie, A. L., & Smernik, R. J. (2012). Biochar carbon stability in a clayey soil as a function of feedstock and pyrolysis temperature. Environmental science & technology, 46(21), 11770-11778. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

15. Chiquier, S., Patrizio, P., Bui, M., Sunny, N., & Mac Dowell, N. (2022). A comparative analysis of the efficiency, timing, and permanence of CO 2 removal pathways. Energy & Environmental Science, 15(10), 4389-4403. ↩

16. Wang, J., Xiong, Z., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2016). Biochar stability in soil: meta‐analysis of decomposition and priming effects. Gcb Bioenergy, 8(3), 512-523. ↩

17. Sanei, H., Petersen, H.I., Chiaramonti, D., and Masek, O., (2025) Evaluating the Two-Pool Decay Model for Biochar Carbon Permanence. Biochar 7 (1): 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-024-00408-0. ↩ ↩²

18. Dilani, R., Schmidt, H.P., Leifeld, J., Bürge, D., Bucheli, T.D., and Hagemann N. (2024). Quantifying soil organic carbon after biochar application: how to avoid (the risk of) counting CDR twice?. Frontiers in Climate 6 (2024): 1343516. ↩

19. Geng, N., Kang, X., Yan, X., Yin, N., Wang, H., Pan, H., Yang, Q., Lou, Y. and Zhuge, Y. (2022). Biochar Mitigation of Soil Acidification and Carbon Sequestration Is Influenced by Materials and Temperature. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 232 (March):113241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2022.113241. ↩

20. Fang, Z., Gao, Y., Bolan, N., Shaheen, S. M., Xu, S., Wu, X., ... & Wang, H. (2020). Conversion of biological solid waste to graphene-containing biochar for water remediation: A critical review. Chemical Engineering Journal, 390, 124611. ↩

21. Anae, J., Ahmad, N., Kumar, V., Thakur, V. K., Gutierrez, T., Yang, X. J., ... & Coulon, F. (2021). Recent advances in biochar engineering for soil contaminated with complex chemical mixtures: Remediation strategies and future perspectives. Science of The Total Environment, 767, 144351. ↩

22. Pranagal, J., & Kraska, P. (2020). 10-years studies of the soil physical condition after one-time biochar application. Agronomy, 10(10), 1589. ↩ ↩²

23. Seleiman, M. F., Alotaibi, M. A., Alhammad, B. A., Alharbi, B. M., Refay, Y., & Badawy, S. A. (2020). Effects of ZnO nanoparticles and biochar of rice straw and cow manure on characteristics of contaminated soil and sunflower productivity, oil quality, and heavy metals uptake. Agronomy, 10(6), 790. ↩ ↩²

24. Ippolito, James A., Liqiang C., Kammann, C., Wrage-Mönnig, N., M. Estavillo, J., Fuertes-Mendizabal, T., Luz Cayuela, M., et al. (2020) Feedstock Choice, Pyrolysis Temperature and Type Influence Biochar Characteristics: A Comprehensive Meta-Data Analysis Review. Biochar 2 (4): 421–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-020-00067-x ↩

25. Hardy B., Sleutel S., Dufey J.E. and Cornelis J-T. (2019). The Long-Term Effect of Biochar on Soil Microbial Abundance, Activity and Community Structure Is Overwritten by Land Management. Front. Environ. Sci. 7:110. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2019.00110 ↩

26. Osman, A.I., Fawzy, S., Farghali, M. et al. (2022). Biochar for agronomy, animal farming, anaerobic digestion, composting, water treatment, soil remediation, construction, energy storage, and carbon sequestration: a review. Environ Chem Lett 20, 2385–2485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01424-x ↩

27. Lehmann, J., & Joseph, S. (Eds.). (2015). Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203762264 ↩

28. Lefebvre, D., Fawzy, S., Aquije, C.A., Osman, A.I., Draper,K.T., and Trabold, T.A. (2023) Biomass Residue to Carbon Dioxide Removal: Quantifying the Global Impact of Biochar. Biochar 5 (1): 65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-023-00258-2. ↩

29. Obia, A., Lyu, J., Mulder, J., Martinsen, V., Cornelissen, G., Smebye, A.B and Zimmerman, A.R. (2024) Biochar Dispersion in a Tropical Soil and Its Effects on Native Soil Organic Carbon. Edited by Muhammad Riaz. PLOS ONE 19 (4): e0300387. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300387. ↩

30. Campion, L., Bekchanova, M., Malina, R.,and Kuppens, T. (2023) The Costs and Benefits of Biochar Production and Use: A Systematic Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (July):137138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137138. ↩

31. Gelardi, D. L., Li, C., & Parikh, S. J. (2019). An emerging environmental concern: Biochar-induced dust emissions and their potentially toxic properties. Science of the Total Environment, 678, 813-820. ↩

32. Guidelines on Practical Aspects ofBiochar Application to Field Soil in Various Soil Management Systems, International Biochar Initiative (2010). Available at: https://biochar-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/IBI_Biochar_Application.pdf ↩

33. Lembrechts, J. J., van den Hoogen, J., Aalto, J., Ashcroft, M. B., De Frenne, P., Kemppinen, J., ... & Hik, D. S. (2022). Global maps of soil temperature. Global change biology, 28(9), 3110-3144. ↩ ↩²

34. Campos, P., Knicker, H., Velasco-Molina, M., & De la Rosa, J. M. (2021). Assessment of the biochemical degradability of crop derived biochars in trace elements polluted soils. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 157, 105186. ↩ ↩²

35. Cipolla, G., Calabrese, S., Porporato, A., & Noto, L. V. (2022). Effects of precipitation seasonality, irrigation, vegetation cycle and soil type on enhanced weathering–modeling of cropland case studies across four sites. Biogeosciences, 19(16), 3877-3896. ↩ ↩²

36. National Research Council, Division on Earth, Life Studies, Ocean Studies Board, Board on Atmospheric Sciences, Committee on Geoengineering Climate, ... & Discussion of Impacts. (2015). Climate intervention: carbon dioxide removal and reliable sequestration. National Academies Press. ↩ ↩²

37. Adhikari, S., Mahmud, M. A. P., Nguyen, M. D., & Timms, W. (2023). Evaluating fundamental biochar properties in relation to water holding capacity. Chemosphere, 328, 138620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138620 ↩

38. Batista, E. M. C. C., Shultz, J., Matos, T. T. S., Fornari, M. R., Ferreira, T. M., Szpoganicz, B., De Freitas, R. A., & Mangrich, A. S. (2018). Effect of surface and porosity of biochar on water holding capacity aiming indirectly at preservation of the Amazon biome. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 10677. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28794-z ↩

39. Yaashikaa, P. R., Kumar, P. S., Varjani, S., & Saravanan, A. (2020). A critical review on the biochar production techniques, characterization, stability and applications for circular bioeconomy. Biotechnology Reports, 28, e00570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2020.e00570 ↩

40. Baiamonte, G., Crescimanno, G., Parrino, F., & De Pasquale, C. (2019). Effect of biochar on the physical and structural properties of a sandy soil. CATENA, 175, 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.12.019 ↩

41. Vaughan, N., Fuss, S., Buck, H., Schenuit, F., Pongratz, J., Schulte, I., Lamb, W. F., Probst, B., Edwards, M., Nemet, G. F., Cox, E., Smith, S., Injy Johnstone, Geden, O., Burke, J., Gidden, M., Roe, S., Müller-Hansen, F., & Minx, J. (2024). The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal—2nd Edition. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/F85QJ ↩

42. Sanei, H., Rudra, A., Przyswitt, Z. M. M., Kousted, S., Sindlev, M. B., Zheng, X., ... & Petersen, H. I. (2024). Assessing biochar's permanence: An inertinite benchmark. International Journal of Coal Geology, 281, 104409. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

43. Nguyen, T.-B., Sherpa, K., Bui, X.-T., Nguyen, V.-T., Vo, T.-D.-H., Ho, H.-T.-T., Chen, C.-W., & Dong, C.-D. (2023). Biochar for soil remediation: A comprehensive review of current research on pollutant removal. Environmental Pollution, 337, 122571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122571 ↩

44. Hou, R., Ouyang, Z., Maxim, D., Wilson, G., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2016). Lasting effect of soil warming on organic matter decomposition depends on tillage practices. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 95, 243-249. ↩

45. Woolf D., Lehmann J., Ogle S., Kishimoto-Mo A. W. , McConkey B., and Baldock J. (2021) Greenhouse Gas Inventory Model for Biochar Additions to Soil. Environmental Science & Technology, 55 (21), 14795-14805 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c02425 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

46. Hao, L., & Naiman, D. Q. (2007). Quantile regression (No. 149). Sage. ↩

47. Buol, S.W. “Tropical soils | humid tropical.” Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-409548-9.05324-0. ↩

48. Correction to Global maps of soil temperature. (2023). Global Change Biology, 29(22), 6423–6433. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16910 ↩

49. S.W. Buol, in Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, 2013 ↩

50. Sarfraz, R., Yang, W., Wang, S., Zhou, B., & Xing, S. (2020). Short term effects of biochar with different particle sizes on phosphorous availability and microbial communities. Chemosphere, 256, 126862. ↩

51. Major, J. (2010). Guidelines on practical aspects of biochar application to field soil in various soil management systems. International Biochar Initiative, 8(1), 5-7. ↩

52. Sainju, U. M., Jabro, J. D., & Stevens, W. B. (2008). Soil carbon dioxide emission and carbon content as affected by irrigation, tillage, cropping system, and nitrogen fertilization. Journal of environmental quality, 37(1), 98-106. ↩

53. Dencső, M., Horel, Á., Bogunovic, I., & Tóth, E. (2020). Effects of environmental drivers and agricultural management on soil CO2 and N2O emissions. Agronomy, 11(1), 54. ↩

54. Lal, R. (2007). Carbon management in agricultural soils. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 12, 303-322. ↩

55. Singh, H., Northup, B.K., Rice, C.W. et al. (2022) Biochar applications influence soil physical and chemical properties, microbial diversity, and crop productivity: a meta-analysis. Biochar 4, 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-022-00138-1 ↩

56. de la Rosa, J. M., Rosado, M., Paneque, M., Miller, A. Z., & Knicker, H. (2018). Effects of aging under field conditions on biochar structure and composition: Implications for biochar stability in soils. Science of the Total Environment, 613, 969-976. ↩ ↩²

57. Chiaramonti, D., Lotti, G., Vaccari, F. P., & Sanei, H. (2024). Assessment of long-lived Carbon permanence in agricultural soil: Unearthing 15 years-old biochar from long-term field experiment in vineyard. Biomass and Bioenergy, 191, 107484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2024.107484 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴