text:
Effects of biochar application on soil greenhouse gas fluxes: a meta-analysis Academic research paper on "Earth and related environmental sciences"
GCB Bioenergy
Earth and related environmental sciences
Similar topics of scientific paper in Earth and related environmental sciences , author of scholarly article — Yanghui He, Xuhui Zhou, Liling Jiang, Ming Li, Zhenggang Du, et al.
Response of soil carbon dioxide fluxes, soil organic carbon and microbial biomass carbon to biochar amendment: a meta-analysis
2015 / Shuwei Liu, Yaojun Zhang, Yajie Zong, Zhiqiang Hu, Shuang Wu, et al.
Biochar Impacts on Soil Physical Properties and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2013 / Atanu Mukherjee, Rattan Lal
Does soil aging affect the N2O mitigation potential of biochar? A combined microcosm and field study
2016 / Nikolas Hagemann, Johannes Harter, Radina Kaldamukova, Ivan Guzman-Bustamante, Reiner Ruser, et al.
Linking N2O emission from biochar-amended composting process to the abundance of denitrify (nirK and nosZ) bacteria community
2016 / Shuqing Li, Lina Song, Yaguo Jin, Shuwei Liu, Qirong Shen, et al.
Biochar increases soil N2O emissions produced by nitrification-mediated pathways
2014 / María Sánchez-García, Asunción Roig, Miguel A. Sánchez-Monedero, María L. Cayuela
Academic research paper on topic "Effects of biochar application on soil greenhouse gas fluxes: a meta-analysis"
Received Date : 16-Mar-2016 Accepted Date : 22-Apr-2016 Article type : Original Research
Effects of biochar application on soil greenhouse gas fluxes: a meta-analysis
1 0 ^ 11 0 0 0 ^ Yanghui He , Xuhui Zhou ' *, Liling Jiang , Ming Li, Zhenggang Du , Guiyao Zhou , Junjiong Shao ' , Xihua
Wang2, Zhihong Xu4, Shahla Hosseini-Bai5, Helen Wallace5, Chengyuan Xu6 Running title: Effects of biochar application on soil GHGs
1 Coastal Ecosystems Research Station of Yangtze River Estuary, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, The Institute of Biodiversity Science, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, 2005 Songhu Road, Shanghai 200433, China
2Tiantong National Field Observation Station for Forest Ecosystem, School of Ecological and Environmental Sciences, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, China
3Center for Global Change and Ecological Forecasting, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
4Environmental Futures Research Institute, School of Natural Sciences, Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, QLD 4111, Australia
5Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, DC Qld 4558, Australia
6School of Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Bundaberg, QLD 4670, Australia
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1111/gcbb.l2376
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
*For correspondence:
Xuhui Zhou
School of Ecological and Environmental Sciences East China Normal University, Shanghai, China Email: xhzhou@des.ecnu.edu.cn Tel: +86 21 54341275
Keywords: biochar, soil greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, global warming potential
Type of Paper: primary research article
Abstract: Biochar application to soils may increase carbon (C) sequestration due to the inputs of recalcitrant organic C. However, the effects of biochar application on the soil greenhouse gases (GHGs) fluxes appear variable among many case studies; therefore the efficacy of biochar as a carbon sequestration agent for climate change mitigation remains uncertain. We performed a meta-analysis of 91 published papers with 552 paired comparisons to obtain a central tendency of three main GHG fluxes (i.e., CO2, CH4, and N2O) in response to biochar application. Our results showed that biochar application significantly increased soil CO2 fluxes by 22.14%, but decreased N2O fluxes by 30.92% and did not affect CH4 fluxes. As a consequence, biochar application may significantly contribute to increased global warming potential (GWP) of total soil GHG fluxes due to the large stimulation of CO2 fluxes. However, soil CO2 fluxes were suppressed when biochar was added to fertilized soils, indicating that
biochar application is unlikely to stimulate CO2 fluxes in the agriculture sector, in which N fertilizer inputs are common. Responses of soil GHG fluxes mainly varied with biochar feedstock source and soil texture, and the pyrolysis temperature of biochar. Soil and biochar pH, biochar applied rate and latitude also influence soil GHG fluxes, but to a more limited extent. Our findings provide a scientific basis for developing more rational strategies towards widespread adoption of biochar as a soil amendment for climate change mitigation.
The global average surface temperature has increased by 0.85 oC over the period 1880 to 2012 based on multiple independently produced datasets, and current projections suggest that the temperature is likely to increase by another 0.3-4.8 oC by the end of this century (IPCC, 2013). Global warming is mostly attributable to the increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) due to human activities. The three main GHGs (i.e., CO2, CH4, and N2O) in combination contribute to more than 90% of anthropogenic climate warming (Hansen et al., 2000; IPCC, 2013).
GHG mitigation strategies include reducing and avoiding emissions as well as enhancing removal of GHGs from the atmosphere (Smith et al., 2008). Soil carbon (C) sequestration through biochar amendment has been proposed as an effective countermeasure for the rising concentration of atmospheric GHGs (Lal, 1999; Pan et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2008). Biochar is a carbon-rich, charcoal-like product produced by burning biomass in the absence of oxygen (Laird et al., 2009; Lehmann, 2007b); it contains a high proportion of recalcitrant organic C and is stable for hundreds to thousands of years after it is applied to soil (Schmidt et al., 2002).
Biochar application to soils has the potential to mitigate global warming via soil C sequestration, and provide other benefits, such as improving soil fertility, retaining soil moisture, and increasing crop yields (Darby etal., 2016; Bai et al., 2015a,b; Hosseini Bai et al., 2014; Reverchon et al. 2014; Laird, 2008; Lehmann, 2007a; Marris, 2006; Mukherjee et al., 2014; Woolf et al., 2010; Xu et al., 2015a,b). However, the precise effects of biochar application on soil GHG emissions remain controversial and appear very variable among many case studies (Cayuela et al., 2014; Lorenz & Lal, 2014). Soil CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes increased significantly in some studies (Jones et al., 2011; van Zwieten et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2012; Yanai et al., 2007), but substantially decreased or remained unchanged in others (Case et al., 2014; Feng et al., 2012; Quin et al., 2015; Rogovska et al., 2011; Zheng et al., 2012). For example, a field trial in paddy soils amended with biochar produced from wheat straw induced a 12% increase in CO2 emissions but a 41.8% decrease in N2O emissions (Zhang et al., 2012b). Another field experiment in pasture showed no significant effects of biochar amendment on soil CO2 and N2O emissions in a pasture ecosystem (Scheer et al., 2011). Thus, the efficacy of biochar for climate change mitigation is largely uncertain due to these variable effects on soil GHGs emissions.
There are many hypotheses to explain why biochar may increase or decrease soil GHG fluxes. For example, increases in soil CO2 emissions induced by biochar might be due to the labile C input and positive priming effects of biochar as well as increased belowground net primary productivity (BNPP) (Zhang et al., 2012a; Zimmerman et al., 2011), while the suppression of soil CO2 emissions may be due to reduced enzymatic activity and the precipitation of CO2 onto the biochar surface (Case et al., 2014). Elevated CH4 emissions could
be attributed to the inhibitory effect of chemicals in the biochar on soil methanotrophs (Spokas, 2010). Reduced CH4 emissions might be associated with decreased ratios of methanogenic archaea to methanotrophic proteobacteria, as the increase in oxygen supply due to biochar application supports a group of aerobic methanotrophs (Feng et al., 2012).
There are also contradictory reports with respect to N2O emissions. For example, increases in N2O emissions may be ascribed to biochar-induced increases in soil water content, which favors denitrification, or the release of biochar embodied-N (Lorenz & Lal, 2014). In contrast, mechanisms that explain decreased N2O emissions include: (1) improved soil aeration, (2) increased soil pH, (3) enhanced N immobilization, and (4) a toxic effect induced by biochar organic compounds (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) on nitrifier and denitrifier communities (Clough et al., 2013; Clough et al., 2010; Hale et al., 2012; Taghizadeh-Toosi et al., 2011).
The contradictory reports of changes in size and even direction of soil GHG emissions when biochar is applied, and the diversity of mechanisms proposed suggest that biochar effects may depend on many factors, including soil properties, experimental methods, artificial cultivation management, biochar application rate, and biochar physic-chemical properties (Hilscher & Knicker, 2011; Lorenz & Lal, 2014). These factors may determine to what extent biochar alters soil C and N transformation processes and consequently soil GHG emissions. However, how these factors contribute to the variable responses of soil GHG emissions to biochar application across the globe still remains unclear. If these factors are not adequately addressed, the effects of biochar application on mitigating global warming cannot be fully understood.
Recently, three meta-analyses on the effects of biochar application on soil GHG fluxes have been conducted. Two of them (i.e., Cayuela et al., 2015; Cayuela et al., 2014) only emphasized the central tendency of soil N2O fluxes under biochar addition, and the other by Liu et al. (2016) examined the response of CO2 fluxes, soil organic C (SOC), and soil microbial biomass C (MBC) to biochar amendment. However, there is limited information on the simultaneous effects of biochar amendments on soil GHG fluxes and their global warming potential (GWP). It is necessary to compile all available data to synthesize results from individual studies to reveal the patterns of biochar-induced changes in soil GHG fluxes and to identify the major drivers for responses of GHG fluxes to biochar addition.
In this study, we compiled data from individual experimental studies that quantified the effect of soil biochar application on GHGs fluxes across various ecosystems and then quantitatively evaluated the responses of soil CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes to biochar application under different environmental and experimental conditions using meta-analysis techniques. Our objectives were to (1) quantify the effect size of biochar amendment on soil GHG fluxes across studies; (2) examine whether environmental conditions, experimental methods, and biochar characteristics would influence the responses of soil GHG fluxes to biochar application; and (3) evaluate the response of GWP of soil GHGs to biochar application.
Publications were searched using Web of Science (1900-2015) with the following search terms: (biochar or black carbon or charcoal) and (soil greenhouse gases (GHGs) or CO2 or CH4 or N2O or global warming potential (GWP)). The selection criteria were as follows: (i) experiments had at least one pair of data (control and treatment) and measured soil CO2, CH4, or N2O fluxes; (ii) the method of biochar application was clearly described, including experimental duration, amount of biochar application, physico-chemical characteristics of biochar, and soil properties such as pH and C/N ratio; (iii) the means, standard deviations/errors, and sample sizes of variables in the control and treatment groups could be extracted directly from tables, graphs or contexts. In total, 91 research papers on biochar application were selected from more than 2000 published papers. The geographic distribution of the selected studies over the world is presented in Fig. 1. The studies contained multiple biochar application levels (Case et al., 2012; Stewart et al., 2013), biochar types (Ameloot et al., 2013; Spokas & Reicosky, 2009), soil types (Gomez et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2011) or N fertilization levels (Barbosa de Sousa et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2014) were treated as multiple independent studies.
Four categories of data were extracted from the literature of biochar application experiments: (1) soil GHG fluxes, including CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes; (2) soil properties, including pH, total C, total N, and C/N ratio; (3) biochar properties, including biochar feedstock types, pyrolysis temperature, rate of biochar applied, pH, total C, total N, and C/N
ratio; and (4) other auxiliary variables, including latitude, longitude, experiment types (field, pot and incubation), experimental duration, and N fertilization (whether or not). The variables listed in category (2), (3) and (4) were used as explanatory factors (either categorical or continuous) of the variation in GHG fluxes in response to biochar application.
We followed the methods used by Hedges et al. (1999) and Luo et al. (2006) to evaluate the responses of soil CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes to biochar application. A response ratio (RR, natural log of the ratio of the mean value of a variable in biochar treatment plots to that in control) was used to calculate effect sizes as below:
RR= ln—- = ln (X) - ln (X) (1)
where —t and —c are means in the treatment and control groups, respectively. The variance (v) of each individual RR is estimated as:
ntX ncXc
where nt and nc are the sample sizes of the variable in treatment and control groups, respectively; St and Sc are the standard deviations for the treatment and control groups.
The mean response ratio (RR++) was calculated from RR of individual pairwise comparisons between treatment and control as below,
Z Z WjRRj
¡=1 j=i
++ m k
i=\ j=i
where m is the number of groups, and k is the number of comparisons in the ith group. The
reciprocal of its variance () was considered as the weight (W) of each RR.
We used a bootstrapping method to obtain the 2.5% and 97.5% percentiles as the lower and upper limits of our 95% bootstrap confidence interval (CI) based on 5000 iterations (Adams et al., 1997; Zhou et al., 2014). When the 95% CI of RR++ for soil GHG emissions overlapped with zero, biochar application had no significant impact on the variable. Otherwise, the biochar-induced response was considered as significance (Luo et al., 2006). The percentage change of variables was calculated on the basis of [exp(RR++)-1]100%. The frequency distribution of the individual response ratio (RR) was tested by a Normal-test and fitted by a Gaussian function using Equation (5) in SigmaPlot software (Systat Software Inc., CA, USA).
y =a exp[ - (X-^] (4)
where x is RR of a variable; y is the frequency (i.e., number of RR values); a is a coefficient showing the expected number of RR values at x=p; and p and a are the mean and variance of the frequency distributions of RR, respectively.
In addition, global warming potential (GWP) was calculated when three soil GHG (i.e., CO2, CH4, and N2O) fluxes were extracted simultaneously from one study (IPCC, 2007). It should be noted that the units of soil CO2, CH4, and N2O fluxes were unified before the calculation of the GWP. The GWP (t CO2 equivalent ha-1) was then determined as follows:
CO2 X 1+CH4 X 25+N2O X 298 (5)
The between-group heterogeneity (Qb) across all data for a given response variable was calculated to further analyze the biochar effect among different subgrouping categories. A random effect model was used to explore the soil and biochar properties and other auxiliary variables that may explain the response of soil GHG fluxes to biochar application. We also
conducted meta-regression to examine the relationships between RR (GHGs) and continuous forcing factors. The correlations of RR (GHGs) among different variables were examined by correlation analysis applied in R (R Core Team, 2015).
The publication bias was tested by funnel plot method and assessed using Kendell's Tau (Moller & Jennions, 2001). If the mean effect had significant difference from zero (i.e., indicating the existence of publication bias), Rosenthal's fail-safe number was calculated (MetaWin 2.1) to estimate whether our conclusion is likely to be affected by the non-published studies (Rosenberg, 2005).
Effects of biochar application on soil greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes
The individual response ratios (RRs) of soil GHG fluxes (i.e., CO2, CH4, and N2O) all
displayed normal/Gaussian distributions (Fig. S1). On average, biochar application
significantly increased soil CO2 fluxes by 22.14% with a mean weighted RR++ of 0.20 (CI =
[0.12, 0.31]), but decreased soil N2O fluxes by 30.92% with a RR++ of 0.37 (CI = [-0.48, -0.28]).
Soil CH4 fluxes were not significantly affected by biochar application (RR++ = -0.03, CI =
[-0.35, 0.23]) (Fig. 2, Table S2). Publication bias for this analysis was not suggested by
Rosenthal's method (Table S3).
The response of soil CO2 flux to biochar application depended significantly on biochar
properties, experimental method, nitrogen (N) fertilization, and latitude. Soil texture and
biochar pH were the two most critical parameters affecting the response of soil CH4 flux to
biochar addition. Biochar-induced changes in soil N2O fluxes were significantly associated with soil and biochar properties, i.e., biochar feedstock type and applied rate, soil texture and pH (Table 1).
Combined effect of biochar with N fertilization on soil GHG fluxes
The combination of biochar with N fertilizer application significantly decreased soil CO2 and increased CH4 fluxes whereas it did not change soil N2O fluxes (Fig. 2 and S2). In unfertilized soils, biochar application significantly increased soil CO2 fluxes by 43.3% with a RR++ of 0.36 (CI = [0.24, 0.50]), but decreased soil CO2 fluxes by 8.6% in N-fertilized soils (RR++ = 0.09, CI = [-0.17, -0.02]) (Table S2). Meanwhile, biochar application significantly increased soil CH4 fluxes by 11.6% with a RR++ of 0.11 in N-fertilized soils (CI = [0.01, 0.25]), but had no significant effect in unfertilized soils (CI = [-0.62, 0.27]). Biochar application significantly reduced soil N2O fluxes by 33.0% and 28.8% in both fertilized and unfertilized soils with RR++ of 0.4 (CI = [-0.53, -0.28]) and 0.34 (CI = [-0.51, -0.18]), respectively (Fig. 2).
Effects of biochar applying methods on GHG fluxes
Experimental methods (i.e., field studies, laboratory incubations, and pot experiments) had a significant effect on the response of soil CO2 and CH4 fluxes to biochar application, while it was not pronounced for N2O fluxes (Table 1, Fig. S3). On average, biochar application significantly increased soil CO2 fluxes by 30.34% in laboratory incubations, but had no changes under field studies and pot experiments. Biochar application significantly increased soil CH4 fluxes by 25.4% in field studies, but did not change in laboratory incubations and pot experiments. In addition, experimental duration showed no significant effect on responses of
soil GHG fluxes to biochar application (Fig. S4).
Interestingly, the effect of fertilization on GHG fluxes in biochar amended soil appears closely related to experiment methodology. Only laboratory incubations showed significant increase of CO2 fluxes to biochar application in unfertilized soils compared to those in field and pot experiments, while there were no responses in fertilized soils. For CH4 fluxes, only field studies showed significant positive responses to biochar application in fertilized soils, and other treatments did not exhibit any significant effects (Fig. 2).
Effects of soil and biochar properties on soil GHG emissions
The response of soil GHG fluxes to biochar application differed for biochar feedstock source (i.e., wood, herb, and biowaste, Table 1, Fig. 3a-c). Among all biochar feedstock sources, wood source had the smallest positive effect for CO2 fluxes and negative effect for N2O fluxes. Meanwhile, biowaste source induced the largest positive effect and negative effect for CO2 and N2O fluxes, respectively. The effects of biochar application on soil CH4 fluxes were not significant among different feedstock sources.
The response of soil GHG fluxes to biochar application also varied with soil texture (Table 1, Fig. 3d-f). For CO2 fluxes, positive effects of biochar application occurred in soils with coarse and medium texture, while no significant effects were found in fine texture. CH4 fluxes showed a significant negative response to biochar amendment only in coarse soils. N2O fluxes significantly decreased by biochar application in all soil types, but the smallest negative response occurred in medium soils.
Response ratios of soil GHG fluxes across all the studies were significantly correlated
with biochar pyrolysis temperature (Tem), biochar pH (BpH), soil pH, and biochar application This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
rate (App), and latitude (Lat) (Table 1, fig. 4). The response of soil CO2 and CH4 fluxes to biochar amendment slightly decreased with pyrolysis temperature and biochar pH (P<0.001), but increased with application rate and latitude of the study for soil CO2 fluxes (P<0.001). In addition, the responses of soil N2O fluxes to biochar application revealed negative trends with soil pH (P=0.001) and application rate (P<0.001). Although these correlations were statistically significant, their contributions in explaining the variation of GHGs fluxes responses were low (0.04<R <0.11, Fig. 4).
Effects of biochar application on global warming potential (GWP)
With those data measured simultaneously for soil CO2, CH4, and N2O fluxes, biochar
application positively affected GWP (RR++ = 0.44, CI = [0.22, 0.69]). Meanwhile, biochar
application significantly increased GWP by a mean response ratio of 0.69 (CI = [0.39, 0.99]) in
unfertilized soils compared to a minor negative effect in N-fertilized soils (RR++ = -0.08, CI =
[-0.15, -0.03], Figs. 5a-c). Interestingly, laboratory incubations showed significant positive
responses of GWP to biochar application, while field and pot experiments exhibited no effects
(Fig. 5d). The different responses between laboratory incubations, field and pot experiments
for all data were the same as those in unfertilized soils (Fig. 5d1), while, in fertilized soils, there
were no significant effects of biochar application on GWP (Fig. 5d2). This pattern generally
matched the effect of biochar on soil CO2 fluxes.
Responses of CO2 CH4, and N2O fluxes to biochar application
On average, our meta-analysis showed that biochar application significantly increased soil CO2 fluxes by 22.14%. Among individual studies, biochar application affected soil CO2 fluxes with diverse magnitudes and even directions (Augustenborg et al., 2012; Scheer et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2012a). The stimulating effects of biochar application on soil CO2 fluxes were usually ascribed to higher labile-C mineralization and/or inorganic C release from biochar (Fig. 6; e.g. Jones et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2010; Zimmerman et al., 2011). Furthermore, as suggested by Liu et al. (2016), biochar application enhanced soil organic C (SOC) by 40% and soil microbial biomass C (MBC) content by 18%. This indicates that the stimulation of soil CO2 fluxes might be associated with the higher SOC status and the more active soil microbial activities (Fig. 6).
Soil CO2 fluxes declined with biochar pyrolysis temperature. Low pyrolysis temperature
results in more microbial-available C and nutrients in biochar than a high pyrolysis temperature,
which promotes high soil microbial activities to decompose soil organic matter (SOM) and
release more CO2 from soil (Chan et al., 2008; Hale et al., 2012; Novak et al., 2010). This
results in the negative relationship between RR (CO2) and biochar pyrolysis temperature and a
positive relationship between RR (CO2) and application rate (Figs. 4a, d). Meanwhile,
high-temperature biochars may contain higher relative concentrations of toxic compounds (i.e.,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) (Nakajima et al., 2007), which can affect soil microbial
biomass and activity. In addition, the RR (CO2) exhibited a negative correlation with biochar
pH probably because biochar with pH < 7 had a relatively high input of labile-C fractions and
triggered a higher priming effect on soil C mineralization (Crombie et al., 2015). Our results This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
indicated that CO2 fluxes did vary over time after biochar application. However, mechanisms involved in soil CO2 stimulation after biochar application may differ in short term compared to long term. In short term, soil CO2 stimulation may have been originated from the breakdown of organic C and the release of inorganic C contained in the biochar (Jones et al., 2011). In the long-term, biochar can promote rapid loss of humus and belowground C (Wardle et al., 2008). Meanwhile, increased belowground NPP induced by biochar amendment maybe also causing the stimulation of CO2 emissions during the long-time experiments (Major et al., 2010).
In addition, biochar-induced changes in soil CO2 fluxes significantly increased with latitude, which may be related to increase soil temperature after biochar application (Bozzi et al., 2015). The increasing temperature may induce the larger stimulation on soil microbes and thereby CO2 fluxes, in the high latitude soils, where microbial activities and soil respiration are strongly limited by temperature (Mikan et al., 2002).
Biochar application had no significant effect on soil CH4 fluxes in our meta-analysis, although individual studies showed diverse effects. In experimental studies, multiple factors (e.g., soil aeration and porosity, methanogens, and methanotrophs) have been proposed to explain the different effects of biochar application on soil CH4 fluxes (Karhu et al., 2011; Lehmann & Rondon, 2006), but the underlying mechanisms are still poorly understood (Lorenz & Lal, 2014). Soil CH4 fluxes are largely determined by methanogens and methanotrophs at a microbial scale (Bodelier & Laanbroek, 2004). Therefore, decreased soil CH4 fluxes under biochar application might be due to the higher ratios of methanogenic to methanotrophic bacteria observed in some studies (Fig. 6; Feng et al., 2012), and others suggested that improved soil aeration and CH4 oxidation after biochar application suppressed
soil CH4 fluxes (Fig. 6; Karhu et al., 2011). In contrast, the increased soil CH4 fluxes under biochar application could be attributed to biochar compounds that inhibit the activity of methanotrophs (Spokas, 2013).
Biochar application decreased CH4 fluxes in coarse soils, whereas it increased CH4 fluxes in fine soils. Biochar application to the coarse soils is likely to improve soil aeration, thus making the soils more favorable for the aerobic methanotrophs communities and increases CH4 oxidation (van Zwieten et al., 2009). However, in the fine textured soils, the porous structure of biochar may be filled with a clay and fine silt fraction, which could offset the aeration effect. A weak stimulation of CH4 fluxes induced by biochar amendment may be due to enhancing soil methanogenic archaea (Feng et al., 2012). In addition, the biochar-induced effects on soil CH4 fluxes decreased with biochar pH, probably resulting from altered soil microbial community structure, especially the ratio of soil methanogenic to methanotrophic abundance (Anders et al., 2013).
Our meta-analysis showed that biochar application decreased soil N2O fluxes by 30.92%, consistent with another meta-analysis reported by Cayuela et al. (2014). This response was probably driven by changes in the activity of the nitrifiers and denitrifiers that produce N2O. Biochar application enhances soil aeration (absorbing/holding an excess of soil moisture) and reduces N leaching as a result of NH4+ and NO3— adsorption by biochar (Fig. 6; Bai et al., 2015a; Hosseini Bai et al., 2014; Reverchon et al., 2014; Rogovska et al., 2011; Steiner et al., 2008; Yanai et al., 2007). The enhanced soil aeration and reduced compaction may inhibit denitrification due to more oxygen being present, and the diminished N leaching may decrease the inorganic N pool available for soil nitrifiers and denitrifiers (Fig. 6). Moreover, biochar
amendment stimulates the nosZ transcription (i.e., denitrifying bacteria gene markers), which suggests that biochar mitigates N2O fluxes by further reducing it to N2 (Xu et al., 2014). In addition, biochar facilitates the transfer of electrons to soil denitrifying microorganisms, which promotes the reduction of N2O to N2 (Fig. 6; Cayuela et al., 2013).
Furthermore, our study found that biochar-induced decreases in N2O fluxes were enhanced with increasing biochar application rate. Larger amounts of microbial-available and active nutrients due to high biochar application rates may promote complete denitrification to N2 (Lorenz & Lal, 2014), which may largely contribute to the suppression of soil N2O fluxes as well as high molar H: Corg ratio (Cayuela et al., 2015).
Regulation of Nitrogen (N) fertilization on biochar impacts
Our results showed that biochar application increased soil CO2 fluxes by 43.33% in unfertilized soils, but decreased by 8.61% in N-fertilized soils, consistent with the meta-analysis of Liu et al. (2016). More available inorganic N source for soil microbes and/or plant roots could stimulate soil microbial C mineralization after N is added (Lu et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2014), but the absorption of NH4+ and NO3— by biochar would decrease the soil inorganic-N pool after N-fertilizers were applied (Clough et al., 2013; Steiner et al., 2008). Therefore, immobilization of soil inorganic-N induced by biochar application may be the main reason for the slight suppression of soil CO2 fluxes in N-fertilized soils. In unfertilized soils, the significant stimulation of soil CO2 fluxes was mainly explained by the relatively higher nutrient availability for soil microbes and/or the priming effect on native soil C decomposition after biochar application (Smith et al., 2010; Wardle et al., 2008).
Biochar application increased soil CH4 fluxes by 11.67% in N-fertilized soils, but had no This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
significant effect on unfertilized soils. Soil CH4 fluxes increased weakly under corn and strongly under rice cultivation with N fertilization, respectively, during the entire growing season (Zhang et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2012b). Biochar input under N addition is likely to alleviate C limitation to microbes. Therefore, the activities of soil methanogenic archaea are enhanced and more CH4 is produced. Alternatively, some studies showed that decreasing of soil CH4 fluxes could be partly explained by the facilitated CH4 oxidation after biochar application (Karhu et al., 2011; Yu et al., 2012), and a more stimulatory effect of biochar on methanotrophic proteobacteria than on methanogenic archaea in unfertilized soils (Feng et al., 2012).
The biochar-induced decrease in soil N2O fluxes was not significantly different in unfertilized (28.82%, CI = [39.95%, 16.47%]) soils from those of N-fertilized soils (32.97%, CI = [41.14%, 24.42%]). As N addition increased N2O fluxes by 216% on average across the globe (Liu & Greaver, 2009), the quantity of soil N2O fluxes mitigated by biochar application in N-fertilized soils is much larger than that in unfertilized soils. As mentioned above, this might be due to more soil NH4+ and/or NO3— absorbed by biochar after N-fertilizer application, likely causing denitrification to decline (Russow et al., 2008) and/or a facilitation of N2O reduction to N2 (Dalal et al., 2003).
Biochar effects on soil GHG fluxes varying with experimental types
The effects of biochar application on soil CO2 fluxes differed with experimental types. Our
study found a significant positive response in unfertilized soils mainly in laboratory
incubations, but not in field and pot experiments. The positive response of soil CO2 fluxes in
laboratory incubation is most likely due to the mineralization of the labile C fractions existed in This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
biochar (Zimmerman et al., 2011), as well as increased soil surface area due to pore structures which promotes microbial activity (Chia et al., 2014). In field experiments, the non-significant difference of CO2 fluxes between control and biochar treatments largely resulted from low application rates and/or high biochar labile C leaching due to rainfall (Kuzyakov et al., 2009; Spokas & Reicosky, 2009). In N-fertilized soils, there were no significant differences in biochar-induced changes of soil CO2 fluxes among field studies, pot experiments, and laboratory incubations. The positive effects of biochar application on soil CO2 fluxes as mentioned above may be offset by absorption of soil inorganic N (NH4+ and NO3—) when biochar is applied (Smith et al., 2010; Steiner et al., 2008; Wardle et al., 2008). Therefore, no changes were observed in soil CO2 fluxes.
Across all studies, soil CH4 fluxes showed a positive response to biochar application in field studies, but no significant changes in laboratory incubations and pot experiments. The positive effects in field studies mainly reported from the treatments with N fertilization. The increase in soil CH4 fluxes under N addition probably resulted from stimulation of soil microbial activities, especially the methanogenic archaea and methanotropic bacteria (Bodelier & Laanbroek, 2004). As reported by Liu et al. (2016), biochar amendment significantly increased soil microbial biomass C (MBC) in the field experiments, whereas MBC decreased in controlled studies. This likely resulted from improving the availability of microbial habitats and accessibility of microbial food resources in the field-based experiments compare to the controlled conditions especially under biochar amendment (Pietikainen et al., 2000).
In contrast, the responses of soil N2O fluxes to biochar application showed a consistent trend across all treatments (Figs. 4a-c). However, laboratory incubations showed greater N2O
flux decreases than field studies with respect to biochar application in unfertilized soils (Fig. 4b), likely due to the difference in mixing of biochar with soil in controlled and field studies. Biochar is mixed thoroughly with soils in most controlled studies, which enhances soil aeration, but in field studies biochar is applied to the soil surface (e.g., Bamminger et al., 2014; Case et al., 2014; Scheer et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2012).
Responses of GWP of soil GHGs to biochar application
Global warming potential (GWP) is a simplified index to estimate the potential future impacts
of GHGs on the global climate system based on their radiative forcing and lifetimes (IPCC,
2013). Overall, biochar application significantly increased GWP by 46.22% (CI = [19.72%,
82.20%]). The fluxes are governed by different mechanisms (Fig. 6), but largely resulting from
the significant stimulation of soil CO2 fluxes. The increased amount of soil CO2 fluxes induced
by biochar application was nearly a one thousand times the size of CH4 or N2O fluxes in most
studies (e.g., Scheer et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2012a). In addition, biochar
increased the GWP of soil GHGs in unfertilized soils, but decreased it in N-fertilized soils due
to the suppression of soil CO2 and N2O fluxes under N addition.
Significant amounts of CO2, CH4, and N2O were released to the atmosphere from
agriculture, which accounted for nearly one-fifth of the annual increase in radiative forcing of
climate change (Cole et al., 1997). Soil GHG fluxes would increase substantially after N
fertilizers were applied, especially in croplands (Hall & Matson, 1999; Liu & Greaver, 2009;
McSwiney & Robertson, 2005; Zhou et al., 2014). Agricultural GHG emissions from crop and
livestock production was 5.3 Pg of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2 eq) in 2011 (FAO 2014).
Tian et al. (2016) estimated CH4 and N2O emissions in the agricultural ecosystems were 169 This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
±26 Tg C yr-1 and 4.9 ± 0.3 Tg N yr-1, respectively. According to our estimates with a decrease of 7.69% for GWP under N fertilization, 0.41 Pg CO2 eq yr-1 could potentially be mitigated by biochar applied to agricultural soils in combination with N fertilizers. Moreover, biochar application would increase average yield of 10% and nearly 14% in acidic soils (Jeffery et al., 2011). Given that our study elicits that biochar application reduces CO2 fluxes and GWP in N-fertilized soil, biochar therefore appears to be a good strategy to mitigate global warming in fertilized agro-ecosystems.
Implications for future experiments and land surface models
The compiled database in our meta-analysis mainly obtained from laboratory incubations, and the results were different for the responses of soil GHG fluxes to biochar application compared to those from field studies (Scheer et al., 2011; Spokas et al., 2009; Fig 4). The lack of field-scale studies, especially those lasting at least two successive seasons (Lorenz & Lal, 2014), may hamper our evaluation of soil GHG fluxes in response to biochar application in the longer term. In addition, most biochar application experiments had been conducted in North America, Europe, and China. There remains a dearth of field studies in other regions, including Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America. Thus, long-term field experiments with biochar amendments are especially needed in these regions.
Nitrogen fertilization mediated the responses of soil GHG fluxes and their GWP to
biochar application. Since N deposition increased from ~34 Tg N yr-1 in 1860 to 100 Tg N yr-1
in 1995 and is predicted to reach 200 Tg N yr-1 in 2050 (Galloway et al., 2008; IPCC, 2013),
the interactive effects between biochar and N addition may dramatically influence soil This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
microbial community structure and ecosystem functioning as well as soil GHG fluxes in the future (Liu et al., 2016). To address this issue, biochar experiments with diverse types of N fertilization (e.g. fertilizer type and level) are needed to examine potential nonlinear responses to biochar application.
In the nature, biochar is often produced by wildfire, and currently, industrially produced-biochar application becomes more common, especially in agriculture. Our meta-analysis results from laboratory, pot, and field studies found significant effects of biochar application on soil GHG fluxes and their GWPs. These results may provide some insights into how the fire-generated biochar affects net climate forcing from soil GHG fluxes and offers recommendations for development and improvement of land surface models. Tempo-spatial variability of soil GHG fluxes is mostly attributed to soil temperature, soil moisture, fire severity, aspect and time since fire in wildfire models (Gathany & Burke, 2011). However, wildfire-produced and industrial biochar may play critical roles in shaping terrestrial ecosystem processes and affecting soil GHG fluxes. Thus, future land surface models may need to incorporate biochar-induced effects to natural ecosystem processes, especially soil GHG fluxes and their GWPs for better forecasting the feedback of terrestrial ecosystems to climate change. Additionally, the combined or interactive effects of N fertilization with biochar amendments can be incorporated into future land surface models to improve the predictions about N-mediated feedback of ecosystem C cycles to climate systems from soil GHG fluxes.
This research was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.31370489), the Program for Professor of Special Appointment (Eastern Scholar) at Shanghai Institutions of Higher Learning, and "Thousand Young Talents" Program in China. We would like to acknowledge the work carried out by the researchers whose published data was used for this meta-analysis.
Adams DC, Gurevitch J, Rosenberg MS (1997) Resampling tests for meta-analysis of ecological data. Ecology, 78, 1277-1283.
Ameloot N, De Neve S, Jegajeevagan K et al. (2013) Short-term CO2 and N2O emissions and microbial properties of biochar amended sandy loam soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 57, 401-410.
Anders E, Watzinger A, Rempt F et al. (2013) Biochar affects the structure rather than the total biomass of microbial communities in temperate soils. Agricultural and Food Science, 22, 404-423.
Augustenborg CA, Hepp S, Kammann C, Hagan D, Schmidt O, Müller C (2012) Biochar and Earthworm Effects on Soil Nitrous Oxide and Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Journal of Environment Quality, 41, 1203.
Bai SH, Reverchon F, Xu CY et al. (2015a) Wood biochar increases nitrogen retention in field settings mainly through abiotic processes. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 90, 232-240.
Bai SH, Xu CY, Xu Z, Blumfield TJ, Zhao H, Wallace H, Reverchon F, Van Zwieten L (2015b) Soil and foliar nutrient and nitrogen isotope composition (51SN) at 5 years after poultry litter and green waste biochar amendment in a macadamia orchard. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22, 3803-3809.
Bamminger C, Marschner B, Juschke E (2014) An incubation study on the stability and biological effects of pyrogenic and hydrothermal biochar in two soils. European Journal of Soil Science, 65, 72-82.
Barbosa De Sousa M, Soares Santos RR, Gehring C (2014) Charcoal in Amazonian paddy soil-nutrient
availability, rice growth and methane emissions. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 177, 39-47.
Bodelier PLE, Laanbroek HJ (2004) Nitrogen as a regulatory factor of methane oxidation in soils and sediments. Fems Microbiology Ecology, 47, 265-277.
Bozzi E, Genesio L, Toscano P, Pieri M, Miglietta F (2015) Mimicking biochar-albedo feedback in complex Mediterranean agricultural landscapes. Environmental Research Letters, 10.
Case SDC, Mcnamara NP, Reay DS, Whitaker J (2012) The effect of biochar addition on N2O and CO2 emissions from a sandy loam soil - The role of soil aeration. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 51, 125-134.
Case SDC, Mcnamara NP, Reay DS, Whitaker J (2014) Can biochar reduce soil greenhouse gas emissions from a Miscanthus bioenergy crop? GCB Bioenergy, 6, 76-89.
Cayuela ML, Jeffery S, Van Zwieten L (2015) The molar H:Corg ratio of biochar is a key factor in mitigating N2O emissions from soil. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 202, 135-138.
Cayuela ML, Sanchez-Monedero MA, Roig A, Hanley K, Enders A, Lehmann J (2013) Biochar and
denitrification in soils: when, how much and why does biochar reduce N(2)O emissions? Sci Rep, 3, 1732.
Cayuela ML, Van Zwieten L, Singh BP, Jeffery S, Roig A, Sánchez-Monedero MA (2014) Biochar's role in mitigating soil nitrous oxide emissions: A review and meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 191, 5-16.
Chan KY, Van Zwieten L, Meszaros I, Downie A, Joseph S (2008) Using poultry litter biochars as soil amendments. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 46, 437-444.
Chia CH, Singh BP, Joseph S, Graber ER, Munroe P (2014) Characterization of an enriched biochar. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 108, 26-34.
Clough T, Condron L, Kammann C, Müller C (2013) A Review of Biochar and Soil Nitrogen Dynamics. Agronomy, 3, 275-293.
Clough TJ, Bertram JE, Ray JL, Condron LM, O'callaghan M, Sherlock RR, Wells NS (2010) Unweathered Wood Biochar Impact on Nitrous Oxide Emissions from a Bovine-Urine-Amended Pasture Soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 74, 852.
Cole CV, Duxbury J, Freney J et al. (1997) Global estimates of potential mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by agriculture. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 49, 221-228.
Crombie K, Masek O, Cross A, Sohi S (2015) Biochar - synergies and trade-offs between soil enhancing properties and C sequestration potential. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 7, 1161-1175.
Dalal RC, Wang WJ, Robertson GP, Parton WJ (2003) Nitrous oxide emission from Australian agricultural lands and mitigation options: a review. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 41, 165-195.
Darby I, Xu CY, Wallace HM, Joseph S, Pace B, Bai SH (2016) Short-term dynamics of carbon and nitrogen using compost, compost-biochar mixture and organo-mineral biochar. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-12.
FAO (2014) Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United nations, Rome, Italy.
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.
Galloway JN, Townsend AR, Erisman JW et al. (2008) Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: Recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science, 320, 889-892.
Gathany MA, Burke IC (2011) Post-fire soil fluxes of CO2, CH4 and N2O along the Colorado Front Range. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 20, 838-846.
Gomez JD, Denef K, Stewart CE, Zheng J, Cotrufo MF (2014) Biochar addition rate influences soil microbial abundance and activity in temperate soils. European Journal of Soil Science, 65, 28-39.
Hale SE, Lehmann J, Rutherford D et al. (2012) Quantifying the Total and Bioavailable Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Dioxins in Biochars. Environmental Science & Technology, 46, 2830-2838.
Hall SJ, Matson PA (1999) Nitrogen oxide emissions after nitrogen additions in tropical forests. Nature, 400, 152-155.
Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R, Lacis A, Oinas V (2000) Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97, 9875-9880.
Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology, 80, 1150-1156.
Hilscher A, Knicker H (2011) Carbon and nitrogen degradation on molecular scale of grass-derived pyrogenic organic material during 28 months of incubation in soil. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 43, 261-270.
Hosseini Bai S, Xu CY, Xu ZH, Blumfield TJ, Wallace HM, Walton DA, Randall BW, Van Zwieten L, (2014) Wood base biochar alters inorganic N. In XXIX International Horticultural Congress on Horticulture: Sustaining Lives, Livelihoods and Landscapes (IHC2014). 1109,151-154.
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Jeffery S, Verheijen FGA, Van Der Velde M, Bastos AC (2011) A quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 144, 175-187.
Jones DL, Murphy DV, Khalid M, Ahmad W, Edwards-Jones G, Deluca TH (2011) Short-term biochar-induced increase in soil CO2 release is both biotically and abiotically mediated. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 43, 1723-1731.
Karhu K, Mattila T, Bergström I, Regina K (2011) Biochar addition to agricultural soil increased CH4 uptake and water holding capacity - Results from a short-term pilot field study. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 140, 309-313.
Kuzyakov Y, Subbotina I, Chen HQ, Bogomolova I, Xu XL (2009) Black carbon decomposition and incorporation into soil microbial biomass estimated by C-14 labeling. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 41, 210-219.
Laird DA (2008) The charcoal vision: A win-win-win scenario for simultaneously producing bioenergy,
permanently sequestering carbon, while improving soil and water quality. Agronomy Journal, 100, 178-181.
Laird DA, Brown RC, Amonette JE, Lehmann J (2009) Review of the pyrolysis platform for coproducing bio-oil and biochar. Biofuels Bioproducts & Biorefining-Biofpr, 3, 547-562.
Lal R (1999) World soils and greenhouse effect. IGBP Global Change Newsletter, 37, 4-5.
Lehmann J (2007a) Bio-energy in the black. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5, 381-387.
Lehmann J (2007b) A handful of carbon. Nature, 447, 143-144.
Lehmann J, Rondon M (2006) Bio-char soil management on highly weathered soils in the humid tropics. Biological Approaches to Sustainable Soil Systems, 113, 517-530.
Liu L, Greaver TL (2009) A review of nitrogen enrichment effects on three biogenic GHGs: the CO2 sink may be largely offset by stimulated N2O and CH4 emission. Ecol Lett, 12, 1103-1117.
Liu SW, Zhang YJ, Zong YJ et al. (2016) Response of soil carbon dioxide fluxes, soil organic carbon and
microbial biomass carbon to biochar amendment: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 8, 392-406.
Lorenz K, Lal R (2014) Biochar application to soil for climate change mitigation by soil organic carbon sequestration. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 177, 651-670.
Lu M, Zhou X, Luo Y, Yang Y, Fang C, Chen J, Li B (2011) Minor stimulation of soil carbon storage by nitrogen addition: A meta-analysis. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 140, 234-244.
Luo YQ, Hui DF, Zhang DQ (2006) Elevated CO2 stimulates net accumulations of carbon and nitrogen in land ecosystems: A meta-analysis. Ecology, 87, 53-63.
Major J, Lehmann J, Rondon M, Goodale C (2010) Fate of soil-applied black carbon: downward migration,
leaching and soil respiration. Global Change Biology, 16, 1366-1379.
Marris E (2006) Putting the carbon back: Black is the new green. Nature, 442, 624-626.
Mcswiney CP, Robertson GP (2005) Nonlinear response of N2O flux to incremental fertilizer addition in a continuous maize (Zea mays L.) cropping system. Global Change Biology, 11, 1712-1719.
Mikan CJ, Schimel JP, Doyle AP (2002) Temperature controls of microbial respiration in arctic tundra soils above and below freezing. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 34, 1785-1795.
Moller AP, Jennions MD (2001) Testing and adjusting for publication bias. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 16, 580-586.
Mukherjee A, Lal R, Zimmerman AR (2014) Effects of biochar and other amendments on the physical properties and greenhouse gas emissions of an artificially degraded soil. Science of The Total Environment, 487, 26-36.
Nakajima D, Nagame S, Kuramochi H et al. (2007) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon generation behavior in the process of carbonization of wood. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 79, 221-225.
Novak JM, Busscher WJ, Watts DW, Laird DA, Ahmedna MA, Niandou MaS (2010) Short-term CO2
mineralization after additions of biochar and switchgrass to a Typic Kandiudult. Geoderma, 154, 281-288.
Pan GX, Li LQ, Wu LS, Zhang XH (2004) Storage and sequestration potential of topsoil organic carbon in China's paddy soils. Global Change Biology, 10, 79-92.
Pietikainen J, Kiikkila O, Fritze H (2000) Charcoal as a habitat for microbes and its effect on the microbial community of the underlying humus. Oikos, 89, 231-242.
Quin P, Joseph S, Husson O et al. (2015) Lowering N2O emissions from soils using eucalypt biochar: the importance of redox reactions. Sci Rep, 5, 16773.
R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
Reverchon F, Flicker RC, Yang H et al. (2014) Changes in delta N-15 in a soil-plant system under different biochar feedstocks and application rates. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 50, 275-283.
Rogovska N, Laird D, Cruse R, Fleming P, Parkin T, Meek D (2011) Impact of Biochar on Manure Carbon Stabilization and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 75, 871.
Rosenberg MS (2005) The file-drawer problem revisited: A general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution, 59, 464-468.
Russow R, Spott O, Stange CF (2008) Evaluation of nitrate and ammonium as sources of NO and N2O emissions from black earth soils (Haplic Chernozem) based on 15N field experiments. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 40, 380-391.
Scheer C, Grace PR, Rowlings DW, Kimber S, Van Zwieten L (2011) Effect of biochar amendment on the
soil-atmosphere exchange of greenhouse gases from an intensive subtropical pasture in northern New South Wales, Australia. Plant and Soil, 345, 47-58.
Schmidt MWI, Skjemstad JO, Jager C (2002) Carbon isotope geochemistry and nanomorphology of soil black carbon: Black chernozemic soils in central Europe originate from ancient biomass burning. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 16.
Smith JL, Collins HP, Bailey VL (2010) The effect of young biochar on soil respiration. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 42, 2345-2347.
Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z et al. (2008) Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc LondB Biol Sci, 363, 789-813.
Spokas KA (2013) Impact of biochar field aging on laboratory greenhouse gas production potentials. GCB Bioenergy, 5, 165-176.
Spokas KA (2010) Observed ethylene production from biochar additions.
http ://www.biorenew. iastate.edu/fileadmin/www.biorenew. iastate.edu/biochar2010/Presentations/Spoka s.pdf.
Spokas KA, Koskinen WC, Baker JM, Reicosky DC (2009) Impacts of woodchip biochar additions on
greenhouse gas production and sorption/degradation of two herbicides in a Minnesota soil. Chemosphere, 77, 574-581.
Spokas KA, Reicosky DC (2009) Impacts of sixteen different biochars on soil greenhouse gas production. Annals of Environmental Science, 3, 179-193.
Steiner C, Glaser B, Teixeira WG, Lehmann J, Blum WEH, Zech W (2008) Nitrogen retention and plant uptake on a highly weathered central Amazonian Ferralsol amended with compost and charcoal. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science-Zeitschrift Fur Pflanzenernahrung Und Bodenkunde, 171, 893-899.
Stewart CE, Zheng J, Botte J, Cotrufo MF (2013) Co-generated fast pyrolysis biochar mitigates green-house gas emissions and increases carbon sequestration in temperate soils. GCB Bioenergy, 5, 153-164.
Sun L, Li L, Chen Z, Wang J, Xiong Z (2014) Combined effects of nitrogen deposition and biochar application on emissions of N2O, CO2 and NH3 from agricultural and forest soils. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 60, 254-265.
Taghizadeh-Toosi A, Clough TJ, Condron LM, Sherlock RR, Anderson CR, Craigie RA (2011) Biochar
Incorporation into Pasture Soil Suppresses in situ Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Ruminant Urine Patches. Journal of Environmental Quality, 40, 468-476.
Tian H, Lu C, Ciais P et al. (2016) The terrestrial biosphere as a net source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Nature, 531, 225-228.
Van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Morris S, Downie A, Berger E, Rust J, Scheer C (2010) Influence of biochars on flux of N2O and CO2 from Ferrosol. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 48, 555-568.
Van Zwieten L, Singh B, Joseph S et al. (2009) Biochar and Emissions of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases from Soil. Science and Technology, Earthscan, London.
Wang J, Zhang M, Xiong Z, Liu P, Pan G (2011) Effects of biochar addition on N2O and CO2 emissions from two paddy soils. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 47, 887-896.
Wang JY, Pan XJ, Liu YL, Zhang XL, Xiong ZQ (2012) Effects of biochar amendment in two soils on greenhouse gas emissions and crop production. Plant and Soil, 360, 287-298.
Wardle DA, Nilsson MC, Zackrisson O (2008) Fire-derived charcoal causes loss of forest humus. Science, 320, 629-629.
Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, Lehmann J, Joseph S (2010) Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature Communications, 1.
Xu C-Y, Bai SH, Hao Y, Rachaputi RCN, Xu Z, Wallace HM (2015a) Peanut shell biochar improves soil
properties and peanut kernel quality on a red Ferrosol. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 15, 2220-2231.
Xu CY, Bai SH, Hao Y, Rachaputi RCN, Wang H, Xu Z, Wallace H (2015b) Effect of biochar amendment on yield and photosynthesis of peanut on two types of soils. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22, 6112-6125.
Xu HJ, Wang XH, Li H, Yao HY, Su JQ, Zhu YG (2014) Biochar impacts soil microbial community composition and nitrogen cycling in an acidic soil planted with rape. Environmental Science & Technology, 48, 9391-9399.
Yanai Y, Toyota K, Okazaki M (2007) Effects of charcoal addition on N2O emissions from soil resulting from
rewetting air-dried soil in short-term laboratory experiments. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 53, 181-188.
Yu L, Tang J, Zhang R, Wu Q, Gong M (2012) Effects of biochar application on soil methane emission at different soil moisture levels. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 49, 119-128.
Zhang A, Cui L, Pan G et al. (2010) Effect of biochar amendment on yield and methane and nitrous oxide
emissions from a rice paddy from Tai Lake plain, China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 139, 469-475.
Zhang AF, Bian RJ, Pan GX et al. (2012a) Effects of biochar amendment on soil quality, crop yield and
greenhouse gas emission in a Chinese rice paddy: A field study of 2 consecutive rice growing cycles. Field Crops Research, 127, 153-160.
Zhang AF, Liu YM, Pan GX, Hussain Q, Li LQ, Zheng JW, Zhang XH (2012b) Effect of biochar amendment on maize yield and greenhouse gas emissions from a soil organic carbon poor calcareous loamy soil from Central China Plain. Plant and Soil, 351, 263-275.
Zheng J, Stewart CE, Cotrufo MF (2012) Biochar and Nitrogen Fertilizer Alters Soil Nitrogen Dynamics and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes from Two Temperate Soils. Journal of Environment Quality, 41, 1361.
Zhou L, Zhou X, Zhang B, Lu M, Luo Y, Liu L, Li B (2014) Different responses of soil respiration and its components to nitrogen addition among biomes: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 20, 2332-2343.
Zimmerman AR, Gao B, Ahn MY (2011) Positive and negative carbon mineralization priming effects among a variety of biochar-amended soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 43, 1169-1179.
Text S1 A list of 91 papers from which the data were extracted for this meta-analysis.
Table S1 Response ratio (RR) and number of paired observations extracted from each of the papers.
Table S2 Percentage changes of soil greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in response to biochar application.
Table S3 The Kendall's Tau for RR(№), RR(CH4), RR(N2O) and RR(GWP) in different treatments.
Fig S1 Frequency distributions of response ratios (RR) of soil CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions to biochar application.
Fig S2 Frequency distributions of response ratios (RR) of soil CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions to biochar application on unfertilized soils and N-fertilized soils.
Fig S3 The effect of biochar application on soil CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions differed with experimental method.
Fig S4 Effects of experimental duration on response ratios of GHG emissions to biochar application.
Table 1 Between-group variability (Qb) among observations (n) suggesting their potential as
predictive variables influencing soil GHG emissions responses to biochar application.
CO2 CH4 N2O
Variables n Qb n Qb n Qb
All studies 402 -- 121 -- 371 --
Role of N fertilization 402 13.43*** 121 7.70** 371 0.37
Experimental method 402 19 52*** 121 9.33** 371 2.34
Feedstock source 402 4.28 121 10.60** 371 19.37***
Soil texture 277 9.95* 86 115.98*** 256 14.34**
Pyrolysis temperature (°C) 385 37.27*** 110 6.85** 354 1.94
Biochar pH 327 25.08*** 103 14.22*** 317 3.05
Soil pH 390 0.55 117 1.62 351 10.19**
Applied rate (Lg (t ha-1)) 400 15.65*** 120 4.53* 371 39.05***
Latitude (o) 401 50.44*** 121 0.00 371 2.50
Soil C/N ratio 212 0.25 58 0.02 183 2.35
Duration (day) 402 0.02 121 0.51 371 1.62
Biochar C/N ratio 387 0.06 120 0.64 363 0.53
A variable with larger Qb is a better predictor than a variable with smaller Qb. Statistical significance of Qb: *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Figure captions
Figure 1 Global distribution of 137 study sites selected in this meta-analysis. Letters C, M and N represent the sites with CO2, CH4 and N2O measurements, respectively.
Figure 2 The effect of biochar application on soil CO2 (a), CH4 (b), and N2O (c) emissions differed with experimental method (including field studies (F), laboratory incubation (I), and pot experiments (P)) in unfertilized soils and N-fertilized soils, shown as weighted response ratio (RR++). Mean effect and 95% CIs are shown. If the CI did not overlap with zero, the response was considered significant ('*'). Numerals indicate number of observations. 'Overall' indicates the integrated biochar effect across N fertilization as compared with controls.
Figure 3 The effect of biochar application on soil CO2 (a and d), CH4 (b and e), and N2O (c and f) emissions depended on biochar feedstock source and soil texture, shown as weighted response ratio (RR++). Mean effect and 95% CIs are shown. If the CI did not overlap with zero, the response was considered significant ('*'). Numerals indicate number of observations.
Figure 4 Effects of biochar pyrolysis temperature, biochar pH, soil pH, applied rate, and latitude on response ratios of soil CO2 emissions (a, b, c, d, and e), CH4 emissions (f, g, h, i, and j), and N2O emissions (k, l, m, n, and o) to biochar application.
Figure 5 Frequency distributions of response ratio (RR) of global warming potential (GWP, panel a) to biochar application, GWP in unfertilized soils (b) and N-fertilized soils (c). The sample size (n), weighted response ratio (RR++) and 95% CIs are shown. The effect of biochar application on GWP differed with experimental method (d), and GWP differed
with experimental method in unfertilized soils (d1) and N-fertilized soils (d2). Mean effect and 95% CIs are shown. If the CI did not overlap with zero, the response was considered significant ('*'). Numerals indicate number of observations.
Figure 6 Potential mechanisms of soil GHG fluxes in response to biochar amendment. The red line and blue line represent the positive and negative regulations, respectively.
(a)C02
Unfertilized
Fertilized
I—•-261 -
-m-I24S,
(b)CH4
I-^—1121
I Unfertilized I-»i-177
-|-I64
I-•-Is
H—•-
(c)N,0
|-*H371*
I—•—I18S|
I—•—S169
I—•—1183 *
I • I
•-149*
-1-1-1-1—-1-1-1-1-T-1-1-1-1-
-0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4
Weighted response ratio (RR,, )
lh>Cll, I-
I-•-
I—•-1
(e)CH4
(f)N20
♦ 79
Meduim
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Weighted response ratio (RR, ,1
; («) R2=0.0Ä P<0.001 : • * . ' lb» i R2=0.08 P<0.001 • • *» : ,. • ■ '.¡■^^¿Ji, I * RJ=0.04 P<0.001 1 «¡#4" ;. i . KHii i' 'MÜH
(f> R2=0,04 P =0.009 ' .rh H. • • » * I*. • tg) R2=0.10 P<0.001 (hi • • L--A; * « i. <. I/* : ■ • : i (¡) ■ • H ■ r 1 ■ : | (il « • s I
• <">, H'-IIJU P-MIIL 1 1(11 , K" II.IJ'I K M.[Ml • « (o) , 1
: ■#;! • •i......Ä- • 1 i ? t ■ «M1 :* sr ■
200 400 600 800 Pyrolysis temperature ( C) 4 6 8 10 Biorliar pH 4 5 6 7 8 9 Soil pH 0 10' ID1 to3 Applied ral«(l ha ') 0 20 40 60 Latitude*")
Response ratio (RR) -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2
(a)GWP-Overall
RR -0.44 SE=0.12 n=154
Cl=[0.22,0.69|
(b)GWP- Unfertilized
RR++=0,69 SE=0.15 n=l 17
CI=[0.39,0.99]
(c)GWP-Fertilized
RR =-0 08
SE=0.04
CI=[-0.15.-0,03]
hJHI3 I
• ! 24
14 (d,)Unfertilized I-•-1111
(dJFertilized
- F I P F 1
-10 12 Response ratio (RR)
-0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 Weighted response ratio (RRJ
Soil Microbes -
Soil Microbes /Plant root
Soil enzyme
Adsorption ,
•N03"/NH4+
Nitrification ^ jy Q ^ Complete denitrification denitrification 2
Methanotrophic Soil Methanogen bacteria aeration archaea
-Biochar-
N03"/NH4T
Soil aeration
Denitrifying microorganisms
Labile C
Electrons transfer


Our Commercial & Development Finance team takes a unique approach to finance that is tailored to your company's potential and your industry's needs.
The funding would be secured to free up your cash flow and release equity in your assets to make your business more competitive.
Advice cannot be given and all cases will be referred to a master brokers within the Intrisic Group.
Commercial Mortgages and Development finance are not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.


text:
Wong & Partners wins accolades at the ALB Malaysia Law Awards 2020
Yaxin Loh August 20, 2020 0 0
Kuala Lumpur, 17 August 2020 – Wong & Partners, a member firm of Baker McKenzie International is proud to announce that our partners and Firm have won several awards at the recent Asian Legal Business (ALB) Malaysia Law Awards 2020. This year's Awards ceremony was held virtually on 14 August 2020, due to Covid-19 restrictions.
Managing Partner Munir Abdul Aziz was named Dealmaker of the Year on the back of his wide breadth of corporate work and M&A deals executed throughout the period under review.
"This is unexpected but I am very grateful to have been recognised by ALB. I share this with my colleagues because the successful completion of these deals stems from the team's effective collaboration and collective hard work. My sincere thanks also go to our wonderful clients for their trust," said Munir.
Former Managing Partner Andre Gan was the recipient of the Managing Partner of the Year award. Along with his strong portfolio of work, Andre was also recognised for his efforts to strengthen the firm's internal policies aimed at supporting diversity and inclusion and mental health. Andre's term as MP concluded on 30 June 2020.
Andre said: "I am grateful for the recognition from ALB, which is a wonderful way to cap my term as MP. During my tenure, I was fortunate to be able to always count on the support of my fellow Partners and heads of departments who embraced my policy changes and helped make them a success. My thanks goes to them all"
The Firm also was named the Tax and Trusts Law Firm of the Year, which is a reflection of the innovative and unique work done by Tax, Trade and Wealth Management practice group.
"I am very pleased to receive this accolade on behalf of my team, particularly given the competitiveness of the field of nominees this year," said Head of Tax, Trade and Wealth Management Partner Adeline Wong. "My thanks to ALB and the judges, my colleagues and most especially our clients for their continuous faith in us."
About Wong & Partners
Wong & Partners, a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, is a Malaysian law firm dedicated to providing solution-oriented legal services to its clients. The Firm uniquely combines its rich local knowledge with broad global capabilities. Since its establishment in 1998, Wong & Partners has grown steadily for 20 years and now consists of 24 partners and more than 52 associates. The Firm's lawyers are able to deliver comprehensive and integrated advice to clients, and are trusted by respected domestic and multinational corporations for their needs in Malaysia and throughout Asia. The Firm's lawyers are committed to helping clients apply industry-specific, innovative and practical solutions. (www.wongpartners.com)
Yaxin Loh
Loh Ya Xin is a community law lawyer in the making. She aspires to encourage legal awareness about community law and to provide access to affordable justice to all.
Rajkumar Mannar, Senior Associate of CHP Law, disc...
SMU Lexicon: Benefits of the Personal Data Protect...
Lawyer Feature: Viviene Sandhu, Partner in Cliffor...
Christopher Huang, Managing Director of CHP Law, s...
Know Your Lawyer: Angelia Thng, Partner at Braddel...
Rajkumar Mannar, Senior Associate of CHP Law, discusses what common misconceptions the public have on lawyers
Vitoria Owyong, at CHP Law, speaks on how the future of law will integrate with technology

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Procter & Gamble (P&G) is one of the world's great companies and one of Greater Cincinnati's largest employers. The company offers two active retirement plans – a 401k Savings Plan and the Procter & Gamble Profit Sharing Trust (PST). Both are enormous – each has about 30,000 participants, with $3 billion in assets for the 401k plan and more than $16 billion in assets for the PST.
On its own, the P&G Savings Plan is a middle-of-the-road 401k package, with no employer match but well-diversified and low-cost investment options. The PST, meanwhile, offers a generous employer contribution but is invested almost exclusively in company stock. That exposure makes it a concentration risk for plan participants, especially those considering an exit. Historically, the generous contributions combined with well-performing P&G stock have allowed employees across the organization to realize their personal financial independence.
The 401k plan is pretty straightforward – it's the profit sharing plan that triggers uncertainty and questions. Our team has been working with P&Gers for decades, and we understand the nuances and issues that are at play. If you're a P&Ger, here are some insights to get you thinking.
For the P&G Profit Sharing Trust, participants have four alternatives to consider for turning their savings into retirement cash flow.
Individual Annuity: This can provide a guaranteed stream of income, but the insurance costs within the annuity can make it more expensive than other alternatives and distributions are taxed as ordinary income. So, almost no one chooses this option.
Leave Assets in the Plan: This option comes with more flexibility than the annuity and management costs are low, but few people select it because it requires leaving at least 40% of the plan balance in P&G stock. In retirement it is not advisable to hold such a large exposure to a single stock as it increases risk.
Full Rollover to an IRA: This choice delivers absolute investment flexibility, but also means forfeiting the potential tax benefits of a lump sum distribution. All distributions will be taxed at ordinary income rates, and there is no "do over" option to execute a lump sum later. That's not ideal.
Lump Sum Distribution: This option requires the prepayment of some tax, but it provides the advantage of converting ordinary income into more favorable capital gains rates. You pay the upfront tax on the low-cost basis shares you receive which turns the value between the cost basis ($6.82 per share for preferred shares) and current stock price into capital gain income versus ordinary income when sold. Capital gains rates start at 0% and go up to 20% once a married couple has more than $400,000 of taxable income. These rates are much lower than ordinary income tax, thus the appeal of this strategy. The lump sum distribution creates low cost basis shares that can be an excellent option for fulfilling your charitable goals. Lastly, there is a technique to defer the upfront tax payment, though this requires a detailed discussion with a financial planner.
For all these reasons and more, the lump sum is the most popular option and the one we most often recommend. It's the only one that allows you to convert ordinary income into capital gains income, while providing the best combination of flexibility and diversification. It's also a huge opportunity for short and long-term cash flow and tax planning. For many people, this kind of distribution is often the first time they're doing advanced financial planning. It's the perfect time to fully understand the interplay of tax rates, cash flow and how all of your financial decisions can deliver one plan that meets all of your short and long-term goals.


text:
The greatest wines in the world
in an absolute sense
In a world of wine unfortunately dominated by the American perversion of the rankings, in which the wines are reduced to a simple number, one hears more and more often about the "best wines in the world", without taking into account that it is difficult and also conceptually questionable to compare and insert in the same ranking a Champagne, a Burgundy, a Chablis, a Sancerre, a Bordeaux, a Châteauneuf-du-Pape or a Côte-Rôtie. While aware of the arduous endeavor, we have tried to choose, without assigning scores or making rankings, some labels that every lover of great wines may wish to taste at least once in their lifetime. An absolutely non-exhaustive selection of a dozen wines that are part of the history of enology.
Krug Clos d'Ambonnay
Together with the Blanc de Blancs Clos du Mesnil it represents one of the top quality of the Maison Krug. It is a Blanc de Noir Millesimato produced only in the best vintages with Pinot Noir grapes coming from a small parcel delimited by walls, located in the municipal territory of the Gran Cru of Ambonnay. A few thousand bottles for collectors and true connoisseurs.
Dom Pérignon Brut Vintage
Champagne par excellence. The most famous label in the world, produced only in exceptional years. A vintage that has now entered the myth, made with an assembly of the best chardonnay and pinot noir grapes from the Maison and aged for at least 8 years on the lees.
La Tâche Grand Cru, Domaine de la Romanée-Conti
A small vineyard inside one of the most famous parcels in the world. We are talking about a legendary place, which all fans know about. Here pinot noir expresses itself on absolute levels, reaching high heights of elegance and complexity.
Montrachet Grand Cru, Domaine Leflaive
His majesty Chardonnay in one of the best interpretations ever. From a selection of the best grapes of the Grand Cru of Montrachet comes a white characterized by a refined elegance, combined with an unparalleled depth and aromatic complexity.
Pauillac Premier Grand Cru Classé, Château Latour A wine symbol of the Médoc, produced near the Gironde estuary, on fine soils made of clay and alluvial pebbles. A classic Bordeaux blend, which comes from the best grapes of the estate's vineyard, planted with cabernet sauvignon (76%), merlot (22%), cabernet franc and petit verdot (2%).
Pomerol, Château Petrus
Another mythical Bordeaux label, one of the most expensive ever, born in the Pomerol area, the cradle of the largest merlots in the world. A red of rare elegance and complexity, made from a vineyard cultivated 95% with merlot and 5% with cabernet franc.
Sauternes 1er Cru Supérieur, Château d'Yquem
Over four hundred years of history for one of the most famous Bordeaux wines. A musty raisin wine, produced with grapes attacked by Botrytis Cinerea, which releases multifaceted and refined aromas. About 100 hectares of vineyards are cultivated 75% with sémillon and 25% with sauvignon blanc.
All the charm of the great Bordeaux reds moved to California. A wine born from the desire of Robert Mondavi and Philippe de Rothscild to produce a great red in Napa Valley. The grapes come from the vineyards grown in the Oakville cru and the assembly is made by: cabernet sauvignon (81%), merlot (6%), cabernet franc (7%), petit verdot (4%) and malbec (2%) .
Ribera del Duero Vega-Sicily Ùnico, Bodega Vega-Sicily
The pearl of Spanish wines. Produced in the Valbuena area, near Valladolid, it comes from a rigorous selection of the best parcels of the estate. Made with fine or tempranillo stain and a small percentage of cabernet sauvignon, it ages for 7 years in French oak barrels and completes the refinement with 2 years in bottle.
Barolo Monprivato, Giuseppe Mascarello
A Barolo that best represents the great Langhe tradition. It is produced from a vineyard grown in the prestigious Monprivato di Castiglione Falletto cru. After 30 months in large Slavonian oak barrels and bottle aging, it gives the emotion of an intense, elegant and complex wine. Nebbiolo in its best guise.
Napa Valley AVA Opus One 2014 Opus One Winery
Opus One is a legendary wine, born from the special collaboration between two "eminences" of the New and Old wine world: Robert Mondavi, pioneer of Californian wine, and Baron Philippe de Rothschild, soul of the famous Château Mouton Rothschild. It is said that in the course of the collaboration they manifested ideas at the antipodes on the creation of this wine, as evidenced by the two faces that look in opposite directions depicted on the label, but in the end they managed to fulfill the expec...
Cask maturation
USA, California
Sauternes AOC Premier Grand Cru 2016 Château d'Yquem
Sauternes Château d'Yquem is born in vineyards located in the Gironde, south of the Bordeaux region. Château d'Yquem is one of the premier crus included in the Official Classification of Bordeaux Wines of 1855, the only Sauternes. This classification system was wanted by the Emperor Napoleon III on the occasion of the Universal Exposition of Paris, in order to make the best Bordeaux wines more recognizable even outside the borders of France. The wines were ordered from the first to the fifth cru...
France, Bordeaux
production-front-2-1 Copyright © 2021 3ND S.r.l.


Perlen-Shop.ch, Swarovski - Perlen - Rocailles - Schmuck - Zubehör bei Perlen-Shop.ch - Tassel, Color: purple, Size: ±2.5cm, Qty:1 pc.
Main page » Accessories » Tassels » Tassel, Color: purple, Size: ±2.5cm, Qty:1 pc.
Tassel, Color: purple, Size: ±2.5cm, Qty:1 pc.


A trip to Fogo is an immersive experience, perfect for those who don't just want to stay in a world-class hotel, but truly delve into the art, culture and spirit of the island.
Note that the months above reflect our preferred times to visit, but the Inn is open – and offering exceptional experiences – year-round.
Must-do Experience? The guided trail walk was unforgettable! And the local hosts are incredible.
Even though the flight only took a few hours, staying on Fogo Island, perched over the ocean waves crashing beneath my window, felt like a trip to the very ends of the earth.
The closest international airport to Fogo Island Inn is Gander, Newfoundland (YQX). The best routes into Gander are through the international airports located in Halifax, NS (YHZ) and St. John's, NL (YYT) via Air Canada or United Airlines, depending on your originating airport.
Direct flights from Toronto to Gander are seasonally available via Air Canada and WestJet.
The closest international airport to Fogo Island Inn is Gander, Newfoundland (YQX). The best routes into Gander are through the international airports located in Halifax, NS (YHZ) and St. John's, NL (YYT) via Air Canada or United Airlines, depending on your originating airport.
In addition to stunning nature hikes and wildlife viewings, the Inn prides itself on immersing travellers in the island by introducing you to local Community Hosts happy to reveal the intimate and artistic nature of their culture.
Fogo Island Inn has 29 guest suites and five suite types that showcase the richness of their locality and clearly express a modern take on traditional Newfoundland outport design and décor.
First floor suites benefit from an intimate connection to the 400-million-year-old rocks of the rugged and fierce Back Western Shore; a place to feel the echoes of time in the rocks and the timelessness of the sea, yet to be tangled up with "the now" through closeness to the public spaces and the social nature of outport life.
These are places for up to two persons to pause and wonder at the unexpected behaviour of light where this powerful landscape meets an even more powerful seascape at the very edge of the North Atlantic.
The third floor reverie rooms allow guests to experience the horizon as an unbroken line; to spend long lazy afternoons in the Ineke Hans-designed Get Your Feet Up reading chairs; on cool days with a wood fire burning and on warm days with the windows open to the fresh ocean air. The third floor Newfoundland suites have a bath, shower and wood stove.
Fogo Island Suites accommodate up to two persons. Each suite is as spectacular and varied as Fogo Island itself. Among the Fogo Island suites are two large corner suites best suited for two people.
The first suite is oriented to the west and offers direct views of Fogo Head and panoramic sunsets from your in-room soaker tub. The other is cantilevered, hovers over the two-storey stilts and is oriented to the east: a perfect perspective from which to view fishing boats chugging in and out of the harbour.
Our Fogo Island Family Suites are perfect for families of up to four. Each suite is as spectacular and varied as Fogo Island itself. All have a bath tub, walk-in shower, and wood stove. Some have an extra washroom.
The Flat Earth suite is oriented to the east and is a distinctive two-storey corner with commanding views to the north, east, and south.
The Flat Earth suite is a singular space within the Inn and is suited for up to three people. This 1,100 square foot retreat features a lofted sleeping quarters and includes a walk-in shower, soaker tub, wood stove and extra washroom.
Discover a few ways to weave Fogo Island Inn into an even grander journey.


text:
Last modified on 1 October 2006, at 10:01
Revision as of 10:01, 1 October 2006 by ChaRleyTroniC (Talk | contribs)
Fidelity was an unfinished program by ChaRleyTroniC, which was publicly previewed at a WACCI Convention but never made available.
It was developed as an extension for Protext that would allow WYSIWYG editing. Bold, italics, underline, and different fonts would be shown on-screen, rather than simply as inverse 'b' or 'i' characters as standard. In addition, .CUT and .DR clip art could be loaded and placed on the page, interspersed with text. This, too, was shown as WYSIWYG.
The program was intended to be available on disc or ROM.
CPCWiki - THE Amstrad CPC encyclopedia!