Global GHG and Yield Patterns
Citation: Jia X, Yan W, Yang J, Chen W, Ma H, Chen X, Liu J, Zhong Y, Shangguan Z (2023). Global patterns and controls of soil greenhouse gas fluxes and crop yield under biochar application. Land Degradation & Development 34(17): 5622–5634. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4868 (open access)
What it is: A global meta-analysis of biochar effects on soil CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O fluxes, warming potential, and crop yield. The vault uses it for recent GHG and yield averages.
Key figures
| Figure | Value | Where | Check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dataset | 3,883 paired observations from 220 studies | Abstract | ✓ abstract |
| Crop yield | +9.4% | Abstract | ✓ abstract |
| N₂O emissions | −26.8% | Abstract | ✓ abstract |
| CH₄ emissions | −13.0%; CH₄ uptake unchanged | Abstract | ✓ abstract |
| CO₂ emissions | +7.4% overall; the increase came mainly from incubation and pot experiments and wasn’t significant in field studies | Abstract | ✓ abstract |
| Global warming potential | −7.7% | Abstract | ✓ abstract |
| GHG intensity | −14.3% overall (−18.7% upland, −14.5% paddy) | Abstract | ✓ abstract |
| Soil carbon pool | +38.1% upland, +33.4% paddy | Abstract | ✓ abstract |
| Strongest driver of GHG responses | Biochar-induced change in soil pH | Abstract | ✓ abstract |
Use with care
- These averages pool incubation, pot, and field experiments. GHG responses were more sensitive in incubation and pot studies than in the field, so field effects are likely smaller than the headline numbers. Earlier vault notes called this meta-analysis “field-focused”; it isn’t.
- Warming potential and GHG intensity are bundled metrics. Check the paper’s system boundaries before comparing them with other studies.
Related: GHG Fluxes · Crop Yield Effects · meta-analyzes N2O mitigation · Key Sources