Biochar-based bioenergy and its environmental impact in Northwestern Ontario Canada: A review

Krish Homagain · Chander Shahi · Nancy Luckai · Mahadev Sharma

REVIEW ARTICLE

Biochar-based bioenergy and its environmental impact in Northwestern Ontario Canada: A review

Krish Homagain · Chander Shahi · Nancy Luckai · Mahadev Sharma

Received: 2014-01-23; Accepted: 2014-05-19

? Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Biochar is normally produced as a by-product of bioenergy. However, if biochar is produced as a co-product with bioenergy from sustainably managed forests and used for soil amendment, it could provide a carbon neutral or even carbon negative solution for current environmental degradation problems. In this paper, we present a comprehensive review of biochar production as a co-product of bioenergy and its implications. We focus on biochar production with reference to biomass availability and sustainability and on biochar utilization for its soil amendment and greenhouse gas emissions reduction properties. Past studies confirm that northwestern Ontario has a sustainable and sufficient supply of biomass feedstock that can be used to produce bioenergy, with biochar as a co-product that can replace fossil fuel consumption, increase soil productivity and sequester carbon in the long run. For the next step, we recommend that comprehensive life cycle assessment of biochar-based bioenergy production, from raw material collection to biochar application, with an extensive economic assessment is necessary for making this technology commercially viable in northwestern Ontario.

biomass, life cycle assessment, LCA, CO2, carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emissions, soil amendment.

Introduction

The earth has sustained hazardous and rapid climate change patterns due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that have been rising by more than 3% annually since 2000 (Solomon et al. 2009; Raupach et al. 2007). Climate change and global warming have been among the most important and widely debated issues for the last decade and will continue to be so for many years to come. Anthropogenic CO2is responsible for about 25% of the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere (Cherubini and Stromman 2011), and its current global level (385ppm of CO2) has already exceeded the safe limit (350ppm of CO2) for human beings (Rockstrom et al. 2009). As a result, global environmental changes including severe weather events (like flood and drought) and land degradation have posed immediate threats to biodiversity and productivity at the same time that demands for food and energy are increasing worldwide (Eriksen et al. 2009). The International Energy Agency predicts that world demand for energy will double by 2035 (IEA 2012). At present, most of the energy demand is being met through the use of non-renewable energy sources (e.g. fossil fuels), which are in fact the most significant contributors of GHG emissions.

Canada is one of the highest energy using countries per capita (16,800 kWh household-1year-1), next only to Iceland and Norway (Nepal et al. 2012). About 15% of this energy is being generated by coal-fired generating stations, which are responsible for 11% of Canada's total GHG emissions and 77% of GHG emissions from the heat and electricity sector alone (EC 2011). In the province of Ontario, coal fired power generating stations working at 10% of the installed capacity meet 2.7% of the total energy demand (IESO 2013), but produce more than 50% of GHG emissions from the electricity sector (EC 2012). In order to reduce the GHG emissions from coal-fired power generating stations, the Ontario Government decided to replace coal with biomass as a feedstock by the end of 2014 (MOE 2010, MOE 2010a). Ontario Power Generation's (OPG) Atikokan GeneratingStation (AGS) in northwestern Ontario is being converted to use 100% wood pellet feedstock using forest biomass. The converted AGS with an installed capacity of 230 megawatts will be the largest (Basso et al. 2013) 100% biomass fueled power plant in North America (OPG 2012) requiring about 90,000 tonnes of wood pellets annually. The converted AGS plant will supply renewable energy, on demand peak capacity power, and create about 200 jobs. Therefore, the use of woody biomass feedstock for power generation not only has the potential to address the environmental problems related to air pollution and climate change but also ensures energy security for local communities (BioCAP 2008). However, concerns have been raised about the sustainability of the supply of woody biomass to AGS and other power generating stations, without causing any negative environmental impacts.

Productive forest on Ontario Crown land in the managed forest area (Area of Undertaking or AOU) covers about 26.2 million hectares with a significant portion located within the boreal. About 18.8 million hectares of this area are eligible for forest management activities. Studies on forest based fibre availability suggest that Ontario has enough surplus biomass available (Wood and Layzell 2003; OPG 2011) to meet the AGS’s requirements. There are 18 actively operating forest management units in northwestern Ontario, capable of supplying about 2.1 million green tonnes (gt) of forest harvest residues and 7.6 million gt of underutilized woody biomass for bioenergy production; these numbers are based on an average annual forest depletion rate of 0.6% of the total productive forest area (Alam et al. 2012). This amount is more than enough to produce the 90,000 tonnes of wood pellets annually required for AGS.

Biomass can be converted into energy (heat or electricity) or energy carriers (char, oil or gas) by different thermochemical and biochemical conversion technologies (Van-Loo and Koppejan 2008). The common thermal conversion technologies in bioenergy systems include: direct combustion, liquefaction, gasification and pyrolysis. Direct combustion, where the biomass is burnt to produce heat with wood ash as a waste product, is the most commonly used complete oxidation process (Obernberger and Thek 2010). Liquefaction, or the conversion of biomass to the liquid phase (biofuel) at low temperature and high pressure (Van-Loo and Koppejan 2008), also produces a significant portion of wood ash as waste. Biomass gasification produces combustible gases including carbon monoxide, hydrogen and traces of other gasses in controlled partial combustion of biomass under high heat and pressure. Pyrolysis is a thermal degradation process producing heat, bio-oil, syngas and biochar in the absence of oxygen (Spokas et al. 2012). Biochar is a porous and stable carbon-rich co-product of the pyrolysis process that has diverse uses including soil amendments and long term carbon sequestration (Lehmann et al. 2006). Biochar differs from charcoal in the sense that it is not used as fuel. Although biochar can be produced from a variety of biomaterials in a variety of ways, in this paper we refer only to biochar produced from woody biomass in a bioenergy plant. Biochar is commonly produced using slow pyrolysis techniques based on heating rate and duration. Slow pyrolysis at 300-500℃ with a vapor residence time of 5–30 min is preferred as it maximizes the biochar production (Bruun et al. 2012; Boateng et al. 2010; Sohi et al. 2010).

Co-production of biochar with bioenergy, with its subsequent application to the soil, has been suggested as one possible method to reduce atmospheric CO2concentration (Laird 2008; Fowles 2007; Lehmann 2007; Lehmann et al. 2006). At present, there is no bioenergy production plant that uses the slow pyrolysis process for producing biochar as a co-product in Northwestern Ontario. Resolute Forest Products (Thunder Bay) burns biomass in its boiler and produces a significant amount of bottom ash, which contains varying amounts of biochar (RFP 2012).

Therefore, conversion from traditional power generation using fossil fuel to bioenergy production with biochar as a co-product can have both short and long term positive environmental impacts. Biochar-based bioenergy can reduce the rate of current GHG emissions by fixing atmospheric carbon into the soil, thereby mitigating the problem of global warming in the long term (Campbell et al. 2008). However, a comprehensive study of the potential environmental and economic impacts of bioenergy and biochar co-production in the region that includes each stage of production and utilization of the product in its life cycle needs to be conducted. Life cycle assessment (LCA, also known as life-cycle analysis or ecobalance) is a standard technique (ISO 14040: 2006 series) to assess environmental impacts associated with all stages of a product's life from cradle-to-grave (i.e., from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacturing, distribution, use, repair and maintenance and disposal or recycling) (Afrane and Ntiamoah 2011). We could find no study documenting the LCA of biochar and bioenergy co-production in Northwestern Ontario and we suggest that this is because the necessary background information has yet to be collected. Therefore, the general purpose of this review paper is to establish the context within which such an analysis could occur. The specific objectives are to review the literature that: (1) explores biochar production potential based on biomass availability and feasibility of sustainable bioenergy production in Northwestern Ontario; (2) documents the effects of biochar on soil property and productivity; (3) examines the life cycle environmental impacts of biochar production and application in terms of GHG emissions and climate change mitigation; and (4) identifies research needs and potential environmental impact assessment methods for woody biomass utilization for biochar-based bioenergy production in Northwestern Ontario in a sustainable manner.

Methods

We conducted a thorough literature search on biochar-based bioenergy production and its environmental impacts in northwestern Ontario through ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar. Based on the search keywords (biomass, bioenergy, biochar, life cycle assessment, biochar soil amendment, Canada, Ontario and northwestern Ontario and combinations) we selected 91 peer reviewed publications (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Study spectrum and number of studies covered in this paper

The extent of papers reviewed is more or less global, with one third focusing on studies related to the USA (Fig. 2). Only 13 papers focused on Canada and only 6 of those were directly related to northwestern Ontario. This shows the lack of attention biochar and its environmental impact assessment has received in Canada in general and in northwestern Ontario in particular.

Fig. 2: Number of studies reviewed in different regions

Review Results

Biochar production potential in northwestern Ontario

Biochar is emerging as an important co-product of bioenergy production in Canada (Thomas 2013). Over the last decade, there has been a constant increase in the use of sawmill and harvesting residue to produce bioenergy that meets the industrial energy demand (NRCan 2010). Northwestern Ontario has a forest area of about 48 million ha of which 67% is covered by productive forests (MNR 2011). There are 18 active forest management units (FMU) in Northwestern Ontario (MNR 2012). Harvesting residue and underutilized tree species in the FMUs and sawmill waste are already being used as feedstocks in northwestern Ontario for energy generation. Studies reviewed in this paper vigorously agree that there is an abundant supply of woody biomass for sustainable bioenergy production in northwestern Ontario (Table 1). Depending upon the pyrolysis technique used, there is a possibility of producing up to 35% biochar from available woody biomass (Brick and Wisconsin 2010).

Table 1: Woody biomass availability (million tonnes year-1) in Northwestern Ontario

Biomass is widely accepted as the oldest source of energy in the world (Van-Loo and Koppejan 2008). Woody biomass, used as a primary source of energy for cooking and heating in many parts of the world, made up approximately 10% of the world’s energy use as of 2009 (Van-Loo and Koppejan 2008). Biomass combustion, responsible for over 90% of the global contribution to bioenergy, is the main technology used for bioenergy production. However, ash formation is one of the major challenges associated with biomass combustion and directly impacts the hearth, boiler or stove depending upon the feedstock (Obernberger and Thek 2010). In recent years, many technological developments, such as fast and slow pyrolysis, in the field of biochar based bioenergy production have taken place. The properties of biochar from these techniques vary with the production technique used (Table 2).

Table 2: Properties of biochar produced from fast and slow pyrolysis techniques. Fast - Moderate temperature (～6000C), short vapor residence time (＜2 sec); Slow - Low temperature (～4000C), long vapor residence time (＞30 min)

Biochar produced at high temperatures from fast pyrolysis results in lower biochar mass recovery, greater surface area, elevated pH, higher ash content, and minimal total surface charge (Novak et al. 2009). Removal of volatile compounds at high pyrolysis temperatures also results in higher percentages of carbon, and much lower hydrogen and oxygen contents (Novak et al. 2009). The properties of biochar also vary with the type of biomass used (Mohan et al. 2006). A typical analysis of average dried woody biomass yields about 52% C, 6.3% H, 40.5% O and less than 1% N. A comparison of the proximate, ultimate and elemental analysis of typical woody biomass with herabeceous plants and agricultural waste is presented in Table 3 (Tillman et al. 2009).

Table 3: Variability of different biomass feedstock composition (Tillman et al. 2009)

Biochar effects on soil properties and productivity

Biochar possesses varying amounts of nutrients including essential elements such as nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium that contribute positively to soil fertility and productivity (Table 4). Properties such as large surface area, micro porosity, high mechanical strength and stability contribute positively to soil texture and fertility of the land (Waters et al. 2011).Biochar application, as a soil enhancer, increases initial growth and crop productivity in tropical soils (Sohi et al. 2010). The growth of organisms involved in N cycling in the soil, specifically those that decrease the flux of N2O, improves with biochar application, thereby resulting in decreased plant pathogens (Anderson et al. 2011). Biochar also influences mycorrhizal abundance by altering soil physico-chemical properties (Smith et al. 2010; Zimmerman 2010), and detoxifying allelochemicals, which provide refuge from fungal grazers (Warnock et al. 2007).

Table 4: Nutrient content of selected biochars [Modified from (Waters et al. 2011)]

Reports of the effects of biochar application on soil quality and crop productivity are highly variable in the literature. High yield improvements (up to 300%) were noticed in some studies when biochar was applied to soils of low fertility (Koide et al. 2011; Kookana et al. 2011; Mankasingh et al. 2011; Sparkes and Stoutjesdijk 2011; Sohi et al. 2010; Van Zwieten et al. 2010; Laird et al. 2010; Sohi et al. 2009; Chan et al. 2007; Lehmann and Rondon 2006), whereas soils of temperate climates and of generally higher fertility showed modest biomass production improvements in the range of 4?20% (Laird et al. 2010; Husk and Major 2010). The forage value of mixed species grown on soil with biochar application (3.9 t·ha-1for 3 years) was also found to be greater than in un-amended soil (Husk and Major 2010). The increase in forage quality was followed by an increase in cow milk production (44% increase) and animal biomass production (Major et al. 2010a). Sohi et al. (2009) provide a comprehensive review of the impact of biochar application on crop yield (Table 5).

Table 5: Impact of biochar application on crop yield [Modified from Sohi et al. (2009)]

Some studies also attribute changes in N immobilization to biochar application (Kookana et al. 2011; Blackwell et al. 2010; Asai et al. 2009) but this phenomenon is of relatively short duration while the unstable fraction of biochar is decomposed. Kishimoto and Sugiura (1985) found 37% and 71% lower soybean yields with biochar application of 5 and 15 tonne per hectare (t·ha-1) respectively, and attributed this reduction to the rise in pH, which led to micronutrient deficiencies induced by the biochar application. In a 2-year trial, Gaskin et al. (2008) observed lower corn yields with peanut hull biochar applied at 22 t·ha-1compared to the control under fertilized conditions. With pine chip biochar application, yield reductions occurred at both 11 and 22 t.ha-1of biochar application in the first but not the second year of the trial. However, trials in both years were affected by drought. The interaction of biochar application with fertilizer rate and type as well as inoculation with mycorrhizae is also complex and not yet well understood (Blackwell et al. 2010).

Biochar application benefits are not only limited to increased production of biomass and crop yield in the short term. Its long term impacts on plant soil systems, nutrient cycling, climate change and mitigation have also been documented (Waters et al. 2011). A summary of significant impacts on ecosystem function is presented in Table 6.

Biochar applications monitored over several years in agricultural lands have shown many short and long term positive effects, such as a liming effect and improved water holding capacity of the soil along with improved crop nutrient availability (Jeffery et al. 2011; Kookana et al. 2011; Scheer 2011; Sohi et al. 2010; Van Zwieten et al. 2010; Major et al. 2010b; Sohi et al. 2009). Because of the variability of biochar applied and the soil types used in these studies, it is difficult to recommend biochar application as a soil amendment for all soil types and cropping systems. More field trials are required on several sites assessing the effect of biochar application in combination with other produc-tion factors.

Table 6: Summary of ecosystem benefits of biochar application (Waters et al. 2011)

Environmental impacts and life cycle assessment of Biochar

Soil carbon is one of the major sources of GHG emissions (Lal 2007). Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) are the most prevalent GHGs in the atmosphere and these three gases together make up about 99% of GHGs (EC 2011). In addition to the potential long term soil carbon sequestration value, biochar application also provides considerable greenhouse gas mitigation benefit by reducing N2O emissions over time (Table 7). The extent of this reduction, however, depends on soil type, application rate, soil moisture content, and biochar type (Taghizadeh-Toosi et al. 2012; Park et al. 2011; Sparkes and Stoutjesdijk 2011; Waters et al. 2011; Sohi et al. 2009). However, in some studies, neutral to slight increases of emissions of N2O from soil were observed in the short term (Clough and Condron 2010). N2O, produced as a result of microbial processes of nitrification and denitrification, has high global warming potential and contributes more than 8% to global GHGs (Harter et al. 2014). The exact mechanisms for observed effects of biochar application on N2O emissions remain unknown (Van Zwieten et al. 2010). The effectiveness of biochar application in reducing soil N2O emissions can increase over time because of the increased sorption capacity of biochar through oxidative reactions on large surface area (Singh et al. 2010). In a recent laboratory study of boreal charcoal (biochar) study Hart (2013) reported that increased mineralization due to the addition of biochar is short lived and likely related to the least stable component of biochar. A brief summary of the reviewed studies on environmental impacts of biochar are outlined in Table 7.

Table 7: Environmental impacts of biochar application

Another notable benefit of biochar application to soil is its ability to reduce nitrogen fertilizer requirements in agricultural systems (Waters et al. 2011). Production of one tonne of nitrogen fertilizer releases more than 3 tonnes of CO2into the atmosphere (West and Marland 2002). Biochar application can reduce the frequency and quantity of N application and subsequently lower emissions from the production of nitrogen fertilizer. In order to have a complete picture of the contribution of biochar production and utilization to GHG emissions, environmental quality, and human health, life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have been done.

LCA considers the flows of raw materials and energy across a system boundary to determine the process’ or product’s full cradle-to-grave impact (Steele et al. 2012; Roberts et al. 2010). LCA techniques have quantified all stages of bioenergy production and utilization systems to assess the environmental impact (Steele et al. 2012; Roberts et al. 2010; Fantozzi and Buratti 2010). Several recent LCA studies considering GHG emissions and carbon sequestration effects have focused on the co-production of biochar and bioenergy from slow pyrolysis of various biomass feedstocks (Hammond et al. 2011; Woolf et al. 2010; Roberts et al. 2010). These studies conclude that biocharsystems could mitigate 0.7–1.4 tonnes of CO2t-1of feedstock consumed. A review of life cycle studies with a brief finding from each study is presented in Table 8.

Table 8: Life cycle analysis studies covered in this review

Economics of biochar based bioenergy production

The economic feasibility of biochar based bioenergy production includes the comparison of cost of collection, transportation, processing of feedstock and energy generated during the pyrolysis process; and benefits obtained from the production of bioenergy and biochar as co-products (McCarl et al. 2009). The cost-benefit analysis also includes the trade-offs between economic gains and environmental and ecosystem function losses. The economics of the biochar based bioenergy system depends on the availability of advanced technology to produce and optimize the co-products based on management objectives. If long term carbon sequestration is valued above renewable energy, then more biochar should be produced in comparison to bio-oil(Palma et al. 2011). However, in order to maximize the economic outputs and beneficial outcomes, the supply chain including feedstock collection, transportation, pyrolysis plant design and operation, and product recovery need to be optimized (Moon et al. 2011; McCarl et al. 2009).

Onsite portable pyrolysis bioenergy production plants are used to reduce the transportation costs of forest biomass(McElligott et al. 2011). Portable units are economically feasible if located at stock piled sources of feedstock (McCarl et al. 2009). However, there is a low probability of a positive net present value (NPV) with portable systems as compared to stationary scenarios (Palma et al. 2011). Stationary fast pyrolysis facilities, using woody biomass feedstock, show the highest potential for profitability with a price of $87 tonne-1of biochar (Granatstein et al. 2009).The maximum revenue using woody biomass feedstock for energy production using slow pyrolysis is $0.09 kg-1and using fast pyrolysis is $0.11·kg-1(Granatstein et al. 2009). Furthermore, slow pyrolysis units will deliver net-negative emissions of greenhouse gases and revenue from C trading could make biochar production for soil application a worthy venture (Gaunt and Lehmann 2008).

The cost-effectiveness of global biochar mitigation potential using marginal abatement cost curves has been evaluated (Pratt and Moran 2010). Biochar stove and kiln projects in developing nations are more cost-effective than pyrolysis plants in developed countries, and thus could abate more fossil fuel carbon emissions (up to 1.03Gt by 2030 in Asia). Biochar based bioenergy projects are expensive, but can compete with other carbon negative technologies, depending on a range of factors including the price of carbon and significant ancillary benefits in terms of biomass productivity (Pratt and Moran 2010). One of the future economic consequences of biochar-based bioenergy may appear when there is a regulatory carbon trading mechanism such as the Carbon Trade Exchange (CTX). Assuming the existence of a carbon trading mechanism for biochar soil application, Galinato et al. (2011) estimated the economic value of biochar application on agricultural cropland for carbon sequestration and its soil amendment properties, and found that it may be profitable to apply biochar as a soil amendment if the biochar market price is low enough and/or a carbon offset market exists. These economic impact assessment studies emphasize the need for a local level accounting of all the stages of production to end use.

Research needs and potential environmental impact assessment methods

Bioenergy is being widely accepted as a green alternative to fossil fuel based energy in many parts of the world. Bioenergy with biochar as a co-product is even more promising in terms of soil amendment and emission reductions benefits. A number of bioenergy production technologies have been developed that produce biochar as a co-product. Biochar application as a soil amendment not only increases crop and biomass production, but also helps in managing waste from bioenergy generation plants that would otherwise end up in landfills. In order to make biochar-based bioenergy production more efficient, past research has identified the use of wood pellets instead of direct biomass as feedstock. Wood pellets help to reduce GHG emissions and the cost of electricity production (Fantozzi and Buratti 2010). The life cycle GHG emission reduction potential and cost efficiency of electricity production from wood pellets can reduce GHG emissions by 90%, NOxby 45?47%, and SOxby 76?81% as compared to coal and natural gas (Zhang et al. 2010). Wood pellets produced in North America and used in European countries to replace fossil fuels in electricity generation, have considerably reduced GHG emissions (Dwivedi et al. 2011). However, it is better to use wood pellets locally than to transport them over long distances, as transportation of wood pellets consumes one third of their energy content (Pa et al. 2012; Magelli et al. 2009). In addition, if wood pellets are used to replace natural gas in district heating systems, it may reduce GHG emissions by 82% and cost by 35% (Pa et al. 2011).

Notwithstanding the beneficial uses of biomass utilization for energy production, some non-governmental organizations (Schlamadinger et al. 1997) have been raising concerns about the sustainability of the system in the long run (Huang et al. 2013). In a recent report, which focuses on Ontario's biomass utilization policy, Green Peace (An international NGO on environmental advocacy) has strongly opposed the province's claim about carbon neutrality of biomass fuel and recommended that full and independent life cycle analyses of forest bioenergy projects be performed to track carbon emissions every year and take into account the “carbon payback time” of each bioenergy project (Mainville 2011). However, Ter-Mikaelian et al. (2008) state that the total forest carbon stock has increased under the current forest management in Ontario. They calculated that, if forests in Ontario are managed for energy production using wood pellets, it would take at least 28 years to theoretically achieve minimum break-even and carbon-neutral periods resulting from displacing coal with biomass feedstock, whereas the current forest age structure in Ontario has a minimum break-even period of 32 years after harvest for carbon balance (Ter-Mikaelian et al. 2011).

There are also differences of opinion in the net benefit of bioenergy production when considering competing interests in the energy sector. Most studies focus on maximization of energy production from biomass using combustion, which may compromise soil amendment and carbon sequestration benefits (Tilman et al. 2009; Lal and Pimentel 2007). Similarly, bioenergy produced from agriculture based feedstock may compete with food production (Pimentel et al. 2009; Searchinger et al. 2008), even though grain- and seed-based biofuels provide significant GHG mitigation benefits (Cherubini et al. 2009). Those competitions, in some extents, are being addressed by using transgenic woody plants especially in the production of biofuels (Tang and Tang 2014). There is an opportunity cost associated with biochar that is used for soil amendment as there is some energy lost in the carbonized biomass. For example, approximately 50% of feedstock energy is lost in the form of carbon in biochar when pyrolysis technology is used for maximizing biochar production (Roberts et al. 2010). Therefore, not all biomass can either beconverted to bioenergy or to biochar.

Most studies reviewed in this paper present the potential benefits of bioenergy or biochar in terms of GHG emissions reduction in the life cycle, but none of the studies conducted the carbon-balance and economic analysis of the whole biochar production and utilization within the system boundary. Therefore, a long term life cycle assessment is needed for the specific region of interest (e.g. northwestern Ontario) to make better decisions about the viability of any biochar production and utilization system (Hammond et al. 2011; Mckechnie et al. 2011).

Conclusions

Northwestern Ontario (Canada) has a sustainable and sufficient supply of woody biomass that can be used to produce biochar based bioenergy for household and industrial purposes. While several biochar based bioenergy plants are operating around the world, the switch to biomass based energy is relatively recent in northwestern Ontario with the AGS conversion representing a new era in large scale fuel requirements. If biochar and bioenergy are produced, they will serve two immediate functions: a) to provide fossil fuel free energy and b) to sequester stable carbon for a longer period. Biomass may be sourced from either harvesting waste or underutilized species. The former is usually piled at roadside and, if not burned in situ, returned to the site or used for fuel, its presence can inhibit regeneration for long periods of time. So called “slash piles” can also pose a fire hazard (McElligott et al. 2011). Harvesting of underutilized species or extension of harvesting to include coarse woody debris (CWD) has raised concerns about reduced soil nutrient inputs thereby altering forest site productivity (Hazlet et al. 2007, Wiebe et al. 2013). CWD also contributes to the structure, microhabitat diversity, and nutrient cycling of forests (Pedlar et al. 2002). Therefore, utilization of forest biomass may warrant a regional harvesting policy. Replacing fossil fuels with biomass for power generation would certainly change the carbon budget of the regional ecosystem, through transportation, collection, processing, and pyrolysis of biomass, and possibly, land application of biochar. However, a comprehensive life cycle analysis of the biochar-based bioenergy production, from raw material collection to biochar application, with an extensive economic assessment is necessary for future development and commercial viability of this technology. Such a study would help decision makers as they create effective bioenergy policies for the region and boost confidence of potential investors to start up new businesses in the area. Future research work in the area of bioenergy production should focus on transportation, storage and processing of biomass, which could further improve the knowledge base in this area.

Afrane G, Ntiamoah A. 2011. Comparative life cycle assessment of charcoal, biogas, and liquefied petroleum gas as cooking fuels in Ghana. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 15(4): 539?549.

Alam MB, Pulkki R, Shahi C. 2012. Woody biomass availability for bioenergy production using forest depletion spatial data in northwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 42(3): 506?516.

Anderson CR, Condron LM, Clough TJ, Fiers M, Stewart A, Hill RA, Sherlock RR. 2011. Biochar induced soil microbial community change: Implications for biogeochemical cycling of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus. Pedobiologia, 54(5-6): 309?320.

Asai H, Samson BK, Stephan HM, Songyikhangsuthor K, Homma K, Kiyono Y, Inoue Y, Shiraiwa T, Horie T. 2009. Biochar amendment techniques for upland rice production in northern Laos 1. Soil physical properties, leaf SPAD and grain yield. Field Crops Research, 111(1-2): 81?84.

Atkinson CJ, Fitzgerald JD, Hipps NA. 2010. Potential mechanisms for achieving agricultural benefits from biochar application to temperate soils: a review. Plant and Soil, 337(1-2): 1?18.

Basso AS, Miguez FE, Laird DA, Horton R, Westgate M. 2013. Assessing potential of biochar for increasing water-holding capacity of sandy soils. GCB Bioenergy, 5(2): 132?143.

Beesley L, Moreno-Jimenez E, Gomez-Eyles JL, Harris E, Robinson B, Sizmur T. 2011. A review of biochars' potential role in the remediation, revegetation and restoration of contaminated soils. Environmental Pollution, 159(12): 3269?3282.

BioCap 2008. Analyzing Ontario biofuel options: Greenhouse gas mitigation efficiency and costs. BIOCAP Canada Foundation, Queen's University, Canada

Blackwell P, Krull E, Butler G, Herbert A, Solaiman Z. 2010. Effect of banded biochar on dryland wheat production and fertiliser use in south-western Australia: an agronomic and economic perspective. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 48(6-7): 531?545.

Boateng AA, Mullen CA, Goldberg NM, Hicks KB, Devine TE, Lima IM, McMurtrey JE. 2010. Sustainable production of bioenergy and biochar from the straw of high-biomass soybean lines via fast pyrolysis. Environmental Progress and Sustainable Energy, 29(2): 175?183.

Brick S, Wisconsin M. 2010. Biochar: Assessing the promise and risks to guide US policy. Natural Resources Defense Council: NRDC Issue Paper, November 2010. http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/biochar_paper.pdf. [Accessed on 17 Feb 2013].

1.1.6 靜脈血栓 術(shù)后鎖骨下靜脈血栓形成發(fā)生率為 3%［9］。Trohman 等［10］認(rèn)為，雙腔起搏器(順序起搏心房和心室)比單腔起搏器(只起搏心房或心室)更易導(dǎo)致靜脈血栓。

Brown RA, Kercher AK, Nguyen TH, Nagle DC, Ball WP 2006. Production and characterization of synthetic wood chars for use as surrogates for natural sorbents. Organic Geochemistry, 37(3): 321?333.

Bruun EW, Ambus P, Egsgaard H, Hauggaard-Nielsen H. 2012. Effects of slow and fast pyrolysis biochar on soil C and N turnover dynamics. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 46: 73?79.

Bruun EW, Muller-Stover D, Ambus P, Hauggaard-Nielsen H. 2011. Application of biochar to soil and N2O emissions: potential effects of blending fast-pyrolysis biochar with anaerobically digested slurry. European Journal of Soil Science, 62(4): 581?589.

Butnar I, Rodrigo J, Gasol CM, Castells F. 2010. Life-cycle assessment of electricity from biomass: Case studies of two biocrops in Spain. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(12): 1780?1788.

Campbell JE, Lobell DB, Genova RC, Field CB. 2008. The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(15): 5791?5794.

Chan KY, Van Zwieten L, Meszaros I, Downie A, Joseph S. 2007. Agronomic values of greenwaste biochar as a soil amendment. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 45(8): 629?634.

Cherubini F, Bird ND, Cowie A, Jungmeier G, Schlamadinger B, Woess-Gallasch S. 2009. Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 53(8): 434?447.

Cherubini F. Stromman AH. 2011. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy sys-tems: State of the art and future challenges. Bioresource Technology, 102(2): 437?451.

Dwivedi P, Bailis R, Bush TG, Marinescu M. 2011. Quantifying GWI of wood pellet production in the southern United States and its subsequent utilization for electricity production in the Netherlands/Florida. Bioenergy Research, 4(3): 180?192.

EC 2011. Environment Canada Website. Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/default.asp?lang=En&n=E907D4D5-1 [Assessed on 5 Nov 2012]

EC 2012. Environment Canada Website. Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/default.asp?lang=En&n=E907D4D5-1 [Assessed on 5 Aug] 2013

Ericksen PJ, Ingram JSI, Liverman DM. 2009. Food security and global environmental change: emerging challenges. Environmental Science and Policy, 12: 373–377

Fantozzi F, Buratti C. 2010. Life cycle assessment of biomass chains: Wood pellet from short rotation coppice using data measured on a real plant. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(12): 1796?1804.

Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P. 2008. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science, 319(5867): 1235?1238.

Fowles M. 2007. Black carbon sequestration as an alternative to bioenergy. Biomass and Bioenergy, 31(6): 426?432.

Galinato SP, Yoder JK, Granatstein D. 2011. The economic value of biochar in crop production and carbon sequestration. Energy Policy, 39(10): 6344?6350.

Gaskin JW, Steiner C, Harris K, Das KC, Bibens B. 2008. Effect of low-temperature pyrolysis conditions on biochar for agricultural use. Transactions of the Asabe, 51(6): 2061?2069.

Gaunt JL, Lehmann J. 2008. Energy balance and emissions associated with biochar sequestration and pyrolysis bioenergy production. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(11): 4152?4158.

Glaser B, Lehmann J, Zech W. 2002. Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal: a review. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 35(4): 219?230.

Gonzalez-Garcia S, Berg S, Feijoo G, Moreira MT 2009. Comparative environmental assessment of wood transport models: a case study of a Swedish pulp mill. Science of the Total Environment, 407(11): 3530?3539.

Granatstein D, Kruger C, Collins HP, Garcia-Perez M, Yoder J. 2009. Use of biochar from the pyrolysis of waste organic material as a soil amendment. Center for Sustaining Agric. Nat. Res. Washington State University, Wenatchee, WA. WSDA Interagency Agreement. C0800248. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0907062.pdf. [Accessed on 25 Jan 2013]

Gundale MJ, DeLuca TH. 2007. Charcoal effects on soil solution chemistry and growth of Koeleria macrantha in the Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir ecosystem. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 43(3): 303?311.

Hacatoglu K, McLellan PJ, Layzell DB. 2011. Feasibility study of a Great Lakes bioenergy system. Bioresource Technology, 102(2): 1087?1094.

Hacatoglu K. 2009. Bioenergy systems in Canada: towards energy security and climate change solutions. Queen's University, Canada. pp. 149.

Hammond J, Shackley S, Sohi S, Brownsort P. 2011. Prospective life cycle carbon abatement for pyrolysis biochar systems in the UK. Energy Policy, 39(5): 2646?2655.

Hart S. 2013. Charcoal in North American boreal forests: Implications for carbon storage and management. PhD Thesis. Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada. 102 pp.

Harter J, Krause HM, Schuettler S, Ruser R, Fromme M, Scholten T, Kappler A, Behrens S. 2014. Linking N2O emissions from biochar-amended soil to the structure and function of the N-cycling microbial community. The ISME Journal, 8: 660?674. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2013.160.

Hazlett PW, Gordon AM, Voroney RP, Sibley PK. 2007. Impact of harvesting and logging slash on nitrogen and carbon dynamics in soils from upland spruce forests in northeastern Ontario. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 39: 43–57.

Hsu DD, Inman D, Heath GA, Wolfrum EJ, Mann MK, Aden A. 2010. Life cycle environmental impacts of selected US ethanol production and use pathways in 2022. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(13): 5289?5297.

Huang YF, Syu FS, Chiueh PT, Lo SL. 2013. Life cycle assessment of biochar cofiring with coal. Bioresource Technology, 131: 166-171.

Husk B and Major J. 2010. Commercial scale agricultural biochar field trial in Québec, Canada, over two years: Effects of biochar on soil fertility, biology, crop productivity and quality. BlueLeaf Inc. Quebec, Canada. 32pp.

Ibarrola R, Shackley S, Hammond J. 2012. Pyrolysis biochar systems for recovering biodegradable materials: A life cycle carbon assessment. Waste Management, 32(5): 859?868.

IEA 2012. World Energy outlook 2012: Executive summary. Paris, France: International Energy Agency (IEA).

IESO 2013. Independent Electricity System Operator New Release. 2013. http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/media/md_newsitem.asp?newsID=6323 [Accessed 5 Jan 2013]

Iswaran V, Jauhri KS, Sen A. 1980. Effect of charcoal, coal and peat on the yield of moong, soybean and pea. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 12: 191?192.

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 and Environment, 144(1): 175?187.

Kameyama K, Shinogi Y, Miyamoto T, Agarie K. 2010. Estimation of net carbon sequestration potential with farmland application of bagasse charcoal: life cycle inventory analysis through a pilot sugarcane bagasse carbonisation plant. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 48(6-7): 586?592.

Kennedy M, Wong R, Vandenbroek A, Lovekin D, Raynolds M. 2011. Biomass sustainability analysis. An assessment of Ontario-sourced forest-based biomass for electricity generation. FINAL REPORT. Revision C. Pembina Institute, Alberta.

Kishimoto S, Sugiura G. 1985. Charcoal as soil conditioner. International Achievements for the Future, 5: 12?23.

Koide RT, Petprakob K, Peoples M. 2011. Quantitative analysis of biochar in field soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 43(7): 1563?1568.

Kookana R. 2010. The role of biochar in modifying the environmental fate, bioavailability and efficacy of pesticides in soils: a review. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 48(6): 627?637.

Kookana RS, Sarmah AK, Van Zwieten L, Krull E, Singh B. 2011. Biochar application to soil: Agronomic and environmental benefits and unintended consequences. In: Donald LS. (eds), Advances in Agronomy. 112. Academic Press, pp. 103?143.

Laird DA, Fleming P, Davis DD, Horton R, Wang B, Karlen DL. 2010. Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma, 158(3-4): 443?449.

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(1): 178?181.

Lal R, Pimentel D. 2007. Biofuels from crop residues. Soil and Tillage Research, 93: 237-238.

Lal R. 2007. World soils and global issues. Soil and Tillage Research, 97(1):1-4.

Larson ED. 2006. A review of life-cycle analysis studies on liquid biofuel systems for the transport sector. Energy for Sustainable Development, 10(2): 109?126. doi: 10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60536-0.

Lehmann J, da Silva Jr JP, Steiner C, Nehls T, Zech W, Glaser B. 2003. Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon basin: fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments. Plant and Soil, 249: 343?357.

Lehmann J, Gaunt J, Rondon M. 2006. Biochar sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems - a review. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11(2): 395?419.

Lehmann J, Rondon M. 2006. Biochar soil management on highly weathered soils in the humid tropics. In: Uphoff N, Ball AS, Fernandes E, Herren H, Husson O, Laing M, Palm C, Pretty J, Sanchez P, Sanginga N, Thies J. (eds), Biological approaches to sustainable soil systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC/Taylor & Francis, pp. 517?530.

Lehmann J. 2007. A handful of carbon. Nature, 447(7141): 143?144.

Lemoine DM, Plevin RJ, Cohn, AS, Jones AD, Brandt AR, Vergara SE, Kammen DM. 2010. The climate impacts of bioenergy systems depend on market and regulatory policy contexts. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(19): 7347?7350. doi: 10.1021/es100418p.

Magelli F, Boucher K, Bi HT, Melin S, Bonoli A. 2009. An environmental impact assessment of exported wood pellets from Canada to Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(3): 434?441.

Mainville N. 2011. Fueling a biomess: Why burning trees for energy will harm people, the climate and forests. Greenpeace, Montreal, Quebec. Pp40.

Major J, Lehmann J, Rondon M, Goodale C. 2010b. Fate of soil-applied black carbon: downward migration, leaching and soil respiration. Global Change Biology, 16(4): 1366?1379.

Major J, Rondon M, Molina D, Riha SJ, Lehmann J. 2010a. Maize yield and nutrition during 4 years after biochar application to a Colombian savanna oxisol. Plant and Soil, 333(1-2): 117?128.

Mankasingh U, Choi PC, Ragnarsdottir V. 2011. Biochar application in a tropical, agricultural region: A plot scale study in Tamil Nadu, India. Applied Geochemistry, 26: S218?S221.

McCarl BA, Peacoke C, Chrisman R, Kung CC, Sands RD. 2009. Economics of biochar production, utilization and greenhouse gas offsets. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S. (eds), Biochar for environmental management science and technology. London, Washington D.C.: Earthscan, pp. 341?358.

McElligott K, Page-Dumroese D, Coleman M. 2011. Bioenergy production systems and biochar application in forests: potential for renewable energy, soil enhancement, and carbon sequestration. USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station. Rep. RN-46.

Mckechnie J, Colombo S, Chen JX, Mabee W, Maclean HL. 2011. Forest bioenergy or forest carbon? Assessing trade-offs in greenhouse gas mitigation with wood-based fuels. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(2): 789?795.

MNR 2011. Forest Resources of Ontario 2011. Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario. Available at: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@forests/do cuments/document/stdprod_092922.pdf. [Accessed on 5 June 2012].

MNR 2012. Forest Management Units in Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario. Available at:http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Forests/1ColumnSubPage/STE L02_163535.html. [Accessed on 6 Jan 2013].

MOE 2010. Ontario's coal phase out plan. Ministry of Environment Ontario. http://news.ontario.ca/mei/en/2009/09/ontarios-coal-phase-out-plan.html. [Accessed on 27 June 2012].

MOE 2010a. Ontario Ministry of the Environment: Green Energy Act. 2010. http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/legislation/green_energy_act/i ndex.htm. [Accessed on 28 Jan 2013]

Mohan D, Charles U, Steele PH. 2006. Pyrolysis of wood/biomass for bio-oil: A critical review. Energy Fuels, 20(3): 848-889. doi: 10.1021/ef0502397.

Moon JH, Lee JW, Lee UD. 2011. Economic analysis of biomass power generation schemes under renewable energy initiative with Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) in Korea. Bioresource Technology, 102(20): 9550-9557.

Nepal P, Grala RK, Grebner DL. 2012. Financial feasibility of increasing carbon sequestration in harvested wood products in Mississippi. Forest Policy and Economics, 14(1): 99?106.

Novak JM, Lima I, Xing B, Gaskin JW, Steiner C, Das KC, Ahmedna M, Rehrah D, Watts DW, Busscher WJ, Schomberg H. 2009. Characterization of designer biochar produced at different temperatures and their effects on a loamy sand. Annals of Environmental Science, 3: 195?206. www.aes.northeastern.edu, ISSN 1939-2621.

NRCan 2010. Is forest bioenergy good for the environment? Canadian Forest Service Science-Policy Notes. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa. 3 p.

Obernberger I, Thek G. 2010. The Pellet Handbook: The Production and Thermal Utilization of Pellets. London, Washington, D.C.: Earthscan, p.549 + xxxii.

Oguntunde PG, Abiodun BJ, Ajayi AE, van de Giesen N. 2008. Effects of charcoal production on soil physical properties in Ghana. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 171: 591?596.

OPG 2011. Ontario Power Generation Biomass Sustainability Analysis Summary Report. Pembina Institute 2011.

OPG 2012. Ontario Power Generation Atikokan Generating Station biomass fuel suppliers announced: meeting the needs of a growing economy in Northwestern Ontario. 2012. http://www.opg.com/news/releases/121122Atikokan%20Fuel%20Contra cts_FINAL.pdf. [Accessed on 30 Jan 2013].

Pa A, Bi XTT, Sokhansanj S. 2011. A life cycle evaluation of wood pellet gasification for district heating in British Columbia. Bioresource Technology, 102(10): 6167?6177.

Pa A, Craven JS, Bi XTT, Melin S, Sokhansanj S. 2012. Environmental footprints of British Columbia wood pellets from a simplified life cycle analysis. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(2): 220?231.

Palma MA, Richardson JW, Roberson BE, Ribera LA, Outlaw J, Munster C. 2011. Economic feasibility of a mobile fast pyrolysis system for sustainable bio-crude oil production. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 14(3):1?16

Park JH, Choppala GK, Bolan NS, Chung JW, Chuasavathi T. 2011. Biochar reduces the bioavailability and phytotoxicity of heavy metals. Plant and soil, 348(1-2): 439?451.

Pedlar JH, Pearce JL, Venier LA, McKenney DW. 2002. Coarse woody debris in relation to disturbance and forest type in boreal Canada. Forest Ecology and Management, 158: 189?194.

Pimentel D, Marklein A, Toth MA, Karpoff MN, Paul GS, McCormack R, Kyriazis J, Krueger T. 2009. Food versus biofuels: Environmental and economic costs. Human Ecology, 37(1): 1?12.

Pratt K, Moran D. 2010. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of global biochar mitigation potential. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(8): 1149?1158.

Raupach MR, Marland G, Ciais P, Le Quere C, Canadell JG, Klepper G, Field CB. 2007. Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(24): 10288?10293.

RFP (Resolute Forest Products) 2012. Our view of sustainability. Annualsustainability report for 2011 performance. Resolute forest products. http://www.resolutefp.com/uploadedFiles/Media/Publications/Resolute_ Sustainability_Report_2011.pdf. [Accessed on 20 July 2013].

Roberts KG, Gloy BA, Joseph S, Scott NR, Lehmann J. 2010. Life cycle assessment of biochar systems: Estimating the energetic, economic and climate change potential. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(2): 827?833.

Rockstrom J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sorlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley JA. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263): 472?475.

Rondon MA, Lehmann J, Ramirez J, Hurtado M. 2007. Biological nitrogen fixation by common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) increases with bio-char additions. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 43: 699?708.

Scheer C. 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(1-2): 47?58.

Schlamadinger B, Apps M, Bohlin F, Gustavsson L, Jungmeier G, Marland G, Pingoud K, Savolainen I. 1997. Towards a standard methodology for greenhouse gas balances of bioenergy systems in comparison with fossil energy systems. Biomass and Bioenergy, 13(6): 359?375.

Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton R, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu TH. 2008. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science, 319(5867): 1238?1240.

Sebastian F, Royo J, Gomez M. 2011. Cofiring versus biomass-fired power plants: GHG (Greenhouse Gases) emissions savings comparison by means of LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) methodology. Energy, 36(4): 2029?2037.

Singh BP, Hatton BJ, Singh B, Cowie AL, Kathuria A. 2010. Influence of biochars on nitrous oxide emission and nitrogen leaching from two contrasting soils. Journal of Environmental Quality, 39(4): 1224?1235.

Smith JL, Collins HP, Bailey VL, 2010. The effect of young biochar on soil respiration. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 42: 2345–2347.

Sohi S, Lopez-Capel E, Krull E, Bol R. 2009. Biochar's roles in soil and climate change: A review research needs. CISRO. Rep. Land and Water Science Report 05/09. 64 pp.

Sohi SP, Krull E, Lopez-Capel E, Bol R. 2010. A review of biochar and its use and function in soil. In Donald LS. (eds), Advances in Agronomy. Vol 105. Academic Press, pp. 47?82.

Solomon S, Plattner GK, Knutti R, Friedlingstein P. 2009. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(6): 1704?1709.

Sparkes J, Stoutjesdijk P. 2011. Biochar: implications for agricultural productivity. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. Rep. ABARES Technical Report No. 11.6.

Spokas KA, Cantrell KB, Novak JM, Archer DW, Ippolito JA, Collins HP, Boateng AA, Lima IM, Lamb MC, McAloon AJ, Lentz RD, Nichols KA. 2012. Biochar: A synthesis of its agronomic impact beyond carbon sequestration. Journal of Environmental Quality, 41(4): 973?989.

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(4): 574?581.

Steele P, Puettmann ME, Penmetsa VK, Cooper JE. 2012. Life-cycle assessment of pyrolysis bio-oil production. Forest Products Journal, 62(4): 326?334.

Steiner C, Teixeira WG, Lehmann J, Nehls T, MaceDo JLV, Blum WEH, Zech W. 2007. Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil. Plant and Soil, 291: 275?290.

Taghizadeh-Toosi A, Clough TJ, Sherlock RR, Condron LM. 2012. Biochar adsorbed ammonia is bioavailable. Plant and Soil, 350(1-2): 57-69.

Tang W, Tang AY. 2014. Transgenic woody plants for biofuel. Journal of Forestry Research, 25(2): 225?236.

Ter-Mikaelian MT, Colombo SJ, Chen JX. 2008. Fact and fantasy about forest carbon. Forestry Chronicle, 84(2): 166?171.

Ter-Mikaelian MT, McKechnie J, Colombo SJ, Chen J, MacLean HL. 2011. The carbon neutrality assumption for forest bioenergy: A case study for northwestern Ontario. Forestry Chronicle, 87(5): 644?652.

Thomas S. 2013. Biochar and its potential in Canadian Forestry. Silviculture Mag. Winter 2013, P 4-6. http://www.silviculturemagazine.com /sites/silviculturemagazine.com/files/issues/2013020712/Winter%20201 3.pdf. [Accessed on 3 Mar 2013]

Tilman D, Socolow R, Foley JA, Hill J, Larson, E, Lynd L, Pacala S, Reilly J, Searchinger T, Somerville C, Williams R. 2009. Beneficial biofuels: The food, energy and environment trilemma. Science, 325(5938): 270?271.

Van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Morris S, Chan KY, Downie A, Rust J, Joseph S, Cowie A. 2010. Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic performance and soil fertility. Plant and Soil, 327(1-2): 235?246.

Van-Loo S, Koppejan J. 2008. The handbook of biomass combustion and cofiring. Earthscan, London. Washington, DC, p. 442+xii.

Warnock DD, Lehmann J, Kuyper TW, Rillig MC 2007. Mycorrhizal responses to biochar in soil - concepts and mechanisms. Plant and Soil, 300(1-2): 9?20.

Waters D, Zwieten L, Singh BP, Downie A, Cowie AL, Lehmann J. 2011. Biochar in soil for climate change mitigation and adaptation. In: Singh BP, Cowie AL, Chan KY (eds), Soil Health and Climate Change. 29 ed. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 345?368.

West TO, Marland G. 2002. A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions, and net carbon flux in agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the United States. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 91: 217–232

Wiebe S, Morris D, Luckai N, Reid D. 2012. Coarse woody debris dynamics following biomass harvesting: Tracking carbon and nitrogen patterns during early stand development in upland black spruce ecosystems. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 23(1): 25?32. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2012.10739957

Wood SM, Layzell DB. 2003. A Canadian biomass inventory: Feedstocks for a bio-based economy. BIOCAP Canada Foundation, Queen's University. Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, Lehmann J, Joseph S. 2010. Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature Communications 1. Article No: 56 doi: 10.1038/ncomms1053

Yamato M, Okimori Y, Wibowo IF, Anshori S, Ogawa M. 2006. Effects of the application of charred bark of Acacia mangium on the yield of maize, cowpea and peanut, and soil chemical properties in South Sumatra, Indonesia. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 52(4): 489?495.

Zhang Y, McKechnie J, Cormier D, Lyng R, Mabee W, Ogino A, MacLean HL. 2010. Life cycle emissions and cost of producing electricity from coal, natural Gas and wood pellets in Ontario, Canada. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(1): 538?544.

Zimmerman AR. 2010. Abiotic and microbial oxidation of laboratory produced black carbon (biochar). Environmental Science and Technology, 44(4): 1295–130.

DOI 10.1007/s11676-014-0522-6

The online version is available at http://www.link.springer.com

Faculty of Natural Resources Management, Lakehead University, 955

Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada P7B 5E1.

E-mail: khomagai@lakeheadu.ca; Tel.: (807) 343 8665

Chander Shahi, Nancy Luckai

Faculty of Natural Resources Management, Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada P7B 5E1.

Mahadev Sharma

Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute (OFRI), 1235 Queen St E, Sault Ste. Marie, ON, Canada P6A 2E5.

Corresponding editor: Chai Ruihai