Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103683

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Technology & Innovation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eti

Can converting raw straw into biochar incorporation achieve both

higher maize yield and lower greenhouse gas emissions intensity
in drought-prone environment?
Junsheng Lu a, b, *, 1, Wei Zhang a, 1, Xuezhi Liu c, Aziz Khan a, Wei Wang a,
Jianrui Ge d, Shicheng Yan a, You-Cai Xiong a, **
a
State Key Laboratory of Herbage Improvement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, College of Ecology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China
c
School of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Ningxia University, Yinchuan 750021, China
d
College of Energy and Power Engineering, Lanzhou University of Technology, Lanzhou 730050, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Converting raw straw into biochar is considered an effective strategy for soil carbon sequestra­
Biochar tion. However, it remains uncertain whether biochar is more environmentally friendly for
Carbon sequestration achieving higher crop yield in comparison to raw straw in drought-prone regions. Here, a 5-year
Global warming potential
experiment with three treatments (no incorporation(CK), raw straw incorporation(SI) and straw-
Grain yield
Soil physicochemical properties
derived biochar incorporation(BI)) was conducted to examine the effects of SI and BI on soil
physicochemical properties, grain yield (GY), and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Results
indicated both SI and BI increased soil water content (SWC), soil temperature (ST), soil porosity,
field capacity, pH, total nitrogen and soil organic carbon (SOC) compared with CK. On average,
seasonal soil CO2 emission increased significantly by 42.3% in SI and 16.8% in BI, respectively;
seasonal N2O emission increased by 26.9% in SI, while decreased by 17.5% in BI. Particularly, the
5-year average GY was as high as 9.4 t ha-1 in BI, significantly higher than that of SI and CK. The
5-year average global warming potential (GWP) increased by 57.9% and 24.6% under SI and BI,
respectively, compared with CK. As a result, the average GHG emission intensity (GHGI)
increased by 32.0% in SI, whereas it declined by 8.9% in BI. Attribution analysis showed that the
CO2 emission primary driven GHGI change under SI, contributing up to 76.4% to GHGI increase.
Conversely, the GY increase primary driven GHGI change under BI, contributing to 55.0% GHGI
decrease. Therefore, converting raw straw into biochar incorporation acts as an environment-
friendly strategy for higher yield harvest.

Abbreviations: BI, biochar incorporation; C, carbon; CK, no straw and biochar incorporation; CO2, carbon dioxide; ET0, reference crop evapo­
transpiration; FC, field capacity; GHG, greenhouse gas; GHGI, greenhouse gas emission intensity; GWP, global warming potential; GY, grain yield;
N2O, nitrous oxide; P, precipitation; SBD, soil bulk density; SI, straw incorporation; SOC, soil organic carbon; SP, soil porosity; ST, soil temperature;
SWC, soil water content; TN, total nitrogen; YS, yield stability.
* Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Herbage Improvement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, College of Ecology, Lanzhou Uni­
versity, Lanzhou 730000, China.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: junshengup@163.com (J. Lu), xiongyc@lzu.edu.cn (Y.-C. Xiong).
1
J.S. Lu and W. Zhang contribute to this work equally

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2024.103683
Received 26 March 2024; Received in revised form 11 May 2024; Accepted 21 May 2024
Available online 22 May 2024
2352-1864/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
J. Lu et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103683

1. Introduction

Global warming and food security are enormous challenges worldwide in the 21st century (Lu et al., 2023; Van Dijk et al., 2021).
Agriculture contributes a 24% of total global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Huang et al., 2022; Han et al., 2019). Increasing
cropland soil carbon (C) sequestration may provide an effective approach to combat global warming and increase food production (Luo
et al., 2023; Ma et al., 2023). Increasing soil C sequestration can be attainable through various anthropogenic C inputs, including straw
return, biochar incorporation, organic fertilizer application and so on (Liu et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023; Berhane et al., 2020). The
critical issue is how fresh carbon from anthropogenic inputs influences GHG emissions and the trade-off between GHG emission and
yield, which remains poorly understood. Elucidating this query is vital to determine the effectiveness of some agricultural management
practices in global warming mitigation and food security.
Crop straw, as an agricultural byproduct, contains substantial amounts of organic C, nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus and other
micronutrients for crop growth (Ma et al., 2021; Palansooriya et al., 2019; Gai et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018). This abundance makes it a
valuable resource with enormous potential to enhance soil quality and increase crop yield (Zhao et al., 2023; Islam et al., 2022; Qin
et al., 2021). Currently, crop straw incorporation (SI) is widely believed to be an effective strategy for enhancing soil structure and
nutrient status (Dhaliwal et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2018), but the effects on soil C sequestration and GHG emission
remain debated (Rui et al., 2022). In fact, crop straw in the soil is easily decomposed organic, and the increased soil organic C (SOC)
from crop C input mainly stems from the necromass and metabolites of soil microorganisms (Chen et al., 2023; Feng and Wang, 2023).
A substantial portion of C is returned to the atmosphere by means of respiration and straw decomposition after SI (Zhao et al., 2016;
Lee et al., 2010), resulting in less than 8% of straw C remaining in soil (Luo et al., 2023). Additionally, SI may increase the risk of GHG
emissions. It has reported that SI significantly increased the annual N2O emission in a rice-wheat cropping system (Wang et al., 2019),
and increased CO2 and N2O emission by 32% and 28% in winter wheat-summer maize cropping system, respectively (Gao et al., 2019).
Conversely, Zhang et al. (2023) suggested that SI significantly suppressed N2O emission and global warming potential (GWP) by 19.4%
and 19.6% in wheat-maize cropping system under sub-surface drip irrigation. A meta-analysis reported that straw return increased
N2O emissions by 14.7% in maize growing season but had insignificant effects on N2O emissions in wheat growing season (Liu et al.,
2023). Overall, the impact of SI on soil C sequestration and GHG emission is still controversial, especially in drought-prone regions.
Biochar, with a recalcitrant aromatic structure, exhibits high stability and resistance to microbial degradation, enabling it to persist
in soil for hundreds of years (Luo et al., 2023). In addition, biochar is porous and low density, which make it ideal for improving soil
porosity, water holding capacity and hydraulic conductivity, reducing soil bulk density and nutrient leaching (Chen et al., 2021; Nie
et al., 2018; Ajayi and Horn, 2016; Laird et al., 2010). Converting crop straw into biochar under low temperature (300–700℃) and
limited oxygen conditions, and subsequently applying it to agricultural soil, has been proven to be a promising long-term strategy for
soil C sequestration (Egamberdieva et al., 2020; Lehmann and Joseph, 2015). In recent years, a large number of studies have explored
the effects of biochar incorporation (BI) on soil physiochemical properties, GHG emission and crop yield. For instance, Yang et al.
(2022) suggested that BI significantly decreased 42.0% N2O emissions compared with no BI. Wang et al. (2017) concluded that BI
decreased N2O emission. However, partial study demonstrated that BI increased N2O and C2O emissions in the pig manure-amended
soil (Troy et al., 2013). Liu et al. (2019) also reported that annual cumulative N2O emissions after adding 4.5 t biochar ha-1 yr-1
increased by 15.9–16.5% compared with no biochar addition. Of course, some studies also suggest that BI has insignificant impact on
GHG emissions (Suddick and Six, 2013; Karhu et al., 2011). The yield increasing effect of short-term BI has been widely recognized, but
there are few studies that simultaneously consider the group effects of long-term BI on soil physicochemical indicators, GHG emissions,
and GY, especially its impact on greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI).
In summary, the incorporation of biochar and straw have been regarded as the most promising measures to improve soil quality and
address climate change, but the impact on GHG and crop yield has not yet reached a unanimous conclusion. Although many studies
have compared the differences in crop GY, GHG emission, and soil physicochemical properties between BI and SI, most studies have
applied biochar with equal amounts of straw or much higher than that produced using equal straw biomass for comparison (Duan
et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2017). In fact, the yield of converting raw straw into biochar is only about 35%. Applying
biochar with the same amount as straw significantly increases the amount of biochar added from the source, resulting in unequal
conditions for BI and SI. In addition, few studies have compared the differences in soil physicochemical properties, soil GHG emission,
GY and GHGI simultaneously under BI and SI, especially in the long-term field experiments. Therefore, this study aims to 1) compare
the effects of straw and biochar produced with equal amounts of straw on soil physicochemical indicators, greenhouse gas emission,
crop yield and yield stability; 2) clarify how soil environmental changes caused by straw and biochar incorporation affect greenhouse
gas emissions and maize yield, and 3) reveal the determining factors and contributions of GHGI changes under straw and biochar
incorporation condition. Illuminating these would helpful to better understand the underlining mechanisms of anthropogenic C inputs
contribution to yield and GHG emission, and determine the net effect of practice in global warming mitigation.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Field experiment site

Field experiment was carried out at Yangling Agriculture High-Tech Industrial Demonstration Zone (34◦20′ N, 108◦24′ E, 506 m),
Shaanxi province, China. The annual mean temperature and evaporation are 12.9℃ and 1500 mm. The annual precipitation was
560 mm, of which more than 60% precipitation occurs in June to September. The soil was classified as a silty loam soil texture (19.8%

2
J. Lu et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103683

clay, 69.2% silt and 11.0% sand). The soil bulk density was 1.39 g cm-3 with a 0.35 cm3⋅cm− 3 field capacity at the top 20 cm soil layer.
Meteorological data was recorded using an automatic weather station (HOBO event logger, USA), and daily precipitation and reference
crop evapotranspiration during 2016–2020 summer maize growing seasons are presented in Fig. S1.

2.2. Experimental design and management

A 5-year (2016–2020) field experiment was arranged to explore the effects of straw or straw-derived biochar incorporation on soil
GHG emission, SOC and GY of summer maize. Therefore, this experiment includes three treatments: 1) control (CK, no straw and
biochar incorporation), 2) straw incorporation (SI, returned whole straw (7.5 t ha− 1) back to field yearly), and 3) biochar incorporation
(BI, about 2.6 t ha− 1, according to 35% yield of straw conversion to biochar). Each treatment was replicated three times for a total of 9
plot, and the experiment was arranged with a completely random method. All experimental plots were tilled up to 20 cm depth before
experiment.The wheat straw (chopped in 3–5 cm length), wheat straw-derived biochar and chemical fertilizer were manually
incorporated into top soil layer (0–20 cm) before sowing summer maize. The fundamental characteristics of biochar and crushed straw
are presented in the Table 1. Urea (N=46%, 120 kg N ha-1), potassium chloride (K2O content=62%, 60 kg K2O ha− 1) and super-
phosphate (P2O5 content=16%, 60 kg P2O5 ha− 1) were used as chemical fertilizer in this study. Summer maize (cv. Zhengdan 958)
with a line spacing of 60 cm and row spacing 30 cm was planted at 55, 556 plants ha-1. No irrigation was applied in summer maize
growth seasons. Disease and pest control and other agronomic measures are consistent with local conditions.

2.3. Gas sampling and analyses

Soil GHG emission were collected and measured about 1–2 days in the first weeks after sowing, and then followed by once a week.
The static closed chamber (30×30×40 cm) approach and gas chromatography (Agilent 7890 A, Inc., Santa Clara, USA) techniques
were used to collect and measure GHG. An electric fan was installed in the static chamber to mix the gas, and a thermometer is also
installed to measure the temperature inside the chamber. The chamber was also equipped with a sampling gas channel with a three-
way stop-cock. After sowing of summer maize, the stainless-steel pedestal with a groove was inserted into the soil (18 cm) next to the
maize of each plot. During the sampling process, the chambers were inserted into the water-filled groove to seal the chamber and avoid
air leakage. The gas samples were collected with a 50 ml syringe at 0, 15, 30 and 45 min between 09:00 and 11:00 am. GHGs flux,
cumulative GHG emissions, global warming potential (GWP) and GHG intensity (GHGI) were calculated followed the references of Li
et al. (2022) and Yuan et al. (2019):

GWP = N2O × 298/1000 + CO2

GHGI = GWP/GY

where N2O denotes seasonal N2O emissions (g ha-1 season-1), CO2 denotes seasonal CO2 emissions (kg ha-1 season-1), and GY means
grain yield (kg ha-1).

2.4. Soil characteristics

During 2020 summer maize harvesting, five soil samples were collected and mixed as a composite sample (0–20 cm soil layer) for
each plot to determine soil physiochemical properties. Partial fresh sample were sieved using a 2 mm mesh, air-dried, and subsequently
sieved again with a 0.15 mm mesh to determine total nitrogen (TN) using Kjeldahl digestion method and SOC using K2Cr2O7–H2SO4
oxidation method. Soil bulk density (SBD) and field capacity (FC) was measured using cutting ring method. And soil porosity (SP) was
calculated using equation based on SBD (SP =1− (SBD/2.65), 2.65 is particle density of the soil). Soil pH was measured by a pH probe
at a 1:2.5 ratio of deionized soil-to-water. The soil water content (SWC, 0–20 cm) and soil temperature (ST, 0–20 cm) were syn­
chronously recorded with greenhouse gas emission measurement. SWC was measured using the oven-drying method at 105 ℃. A
portable digital thermometer (JM624, Jinming Instrument Ltd., Tianjin, China) was used to measure soil temperature (ST). Addi­
tionally, soil sample (0–20 cm soil layer) were also synchronously collected with greenhouse gas emission measurement, sieved with
− 1
1 mm mesh to determine soil NO−3 − N and NH+ 4 − N using a Seal Auto Analyzer (FLOWSYS, Italy) after extraction with 1 mol L KCl.

2.5. Grain yield and yield stability

At harvest, fifteen maize cobs were randomly collected in each plot to determine GY, weighted up to 14% moisture content (Lu
et al., 2021). The yield stability (YS) was obtained according to the references of Lu et al. (2023) and Li et al. (2022).

Table 1
The fundamental characteristics of straw and straw–derived biochar applied in this study.
Total C (g kg-1) Total N (g kg-1) pH Ash (%) Annual C input (t ha-1) Annual N input (kg ha-1)

Straw 453.9 4.6 8.35 — 3.4 34.5

Biochar 615.8 9.8 9.78 16.8 1.6 25.5

3
 J. Lu et al.
Table 2
Precipitation (P), reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0) and P/ET0 in different growth stages of summer maize.
Growth stage Precipitation (P, mm) Reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0, mm) P/ET0

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

S1 (6.06–7.05) 53.6 35.5 143.8 108.4 138.8 159.3 155.8 115.0 112.3 141.6 0.34 0.23 1.25 0.97 0.98
S2 (7.06–7.25) 115.6 18.5 63.3 65.6 156.4 89.8 124.9 79.6 79.9 82.8 1.29 0.15 0.80 0.82 1.89
4

S3 (7.26–8.10) 10.9 62.5 49.3 120.2 91.0 63.7 80.9 82.7 66.1 77.2 0.17 0.77 0.60 1.82 1.18
S4 (8.10–9.15) 14.1 80.7 159.6 173.8 130.6 145.6 102.0 131.5 116.7 133.6 0.10 0.79 1.21 1.49 0.98
S5 (9.16–9.30) 92.1 70.1 23.0 42.8 34.7 29.1 31.4 32.1 39.1 36.5 3.17 2.23 0.72 1.10 0.95
T/M (6.6–9.30) 286.3 267.3 439.0 510.8 551.5 487.4 495.0 440.9 414.1 471.7 0.59 0.54 1.00 1.23 1.17

Note: S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5 represent the sowing to seedling stage, jointing stage, tasseling to silking stage, blister to dough stage, and dent to maturity stages, respectively. T represent total precipitation
(P) or reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0), M represent average vale of P/ET0, respectively. Dates within parentheses indicate start and end dates of growth stage.

Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103683

J. Lu et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103683
YS=Mib/SDib

where Mib and SDib represent the mean and standard deviation of GY in each treatment (i) and each block (b) over five maize growing
seasons.

2.6. Statistical analysis

Difference in the soil physiochemical, greenhouse gas emission, global warming potential and greenhouse gas intensity, maize
grain yield and yield stability were examined using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with LSD test at p=0.05 level. The data used
in this study (mean±se, n=3) were calculated come from the triplicate plots. The structure equation model was used to illustrate the
relationship of soil environment induced by straw and biochar incorporation and the compose factors of GHGI (grain yield, CO2 and
N2O emissions). At the same time, attribution analysis was used to determine the contributions of grain yield, CO2 and N2O emissions
to changes in GHGI. The statistical analyses were realized in R 4.2.2 software. Figures were plotted using Sigmaplot 12.5 professional
version.

3. Results

3.1. Precipitation distribution

During the summer maize growing seasons (June to September of 2016–2020), the total precipitation ranged between 267.3 and
551.5 mm, and the total reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0) ranged between 414.1 and 495.0 mm (Table 2). The precipitation in
2016 and 2017 growing season was 286.3 and 267.3 mm, respectively. This was lower than the long-term average of 364 mm. The
precipitation in 2018, 2019 and 2020 growing season was 439.0, 510.8 and 551.5 mm, respectively, which was higher than the long-
term average precipitation. The ratio of precipitation and ET0 (P/ET0) is often used to evaluate the water status of a region. The
seasonal mean values of P/ET0 were 0.59, 0.54, 1.00, 1.23 and 1.17 in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 growing seasons, respec­
tively. Therefore, the growing season of 2016 and 2017 was drier, while 2018–2020 was humid season. P/ET0 in S1 (sowing to
seedling stage), S3 (tasseling to silking stage) and S4 (blister to dough stage) growth stage of 2016, and in S1 and S2 (jointing stage)
growth stage of 2017 was less than 0.5. This indicate that summer maize in these stages were subjected to severe water deficiency.

3.2. Soil physical and chemical properties

The dynamics change of soil water content (SWC) of 0–20 cm soil layer was presented in Fig. 1, ranging from 10.3% to 26.0%
during summer maize growing seasons. In S3 and S4 growth stages of 2016, S1 and S2 growth stage of 2017, the SWC remained at a
relatively lower level (less than 60% field capacity) for a long time (Fig. 1a and b). The SWC briefly appears at lower level in S3 stage of

Fig. 1. The variations in soil water content (SWC) in 2016 (a), 2017 (b), 2018 (c), 2019 (d) and 2020 (e) summer maize growing seasons, and
averaged SWC in each growing seasons (f). BI, biochar incorporation; SI, straw incorporation; CK, no straw and biochar incorporation. Different
letters above the bars indicate statistical differences among treatments at significant level P=0.05 with LSD test. The same below.

5
J. Lu et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103683

2018 (Fig. 1c). In 2019 and 2020, SWC remained at a high level throughout the entire growth period of summer maize (Fig. 1d and e).
The SWC of BI was significantly higher than that of SI, and the SWC of SI was significantly higher than that of CK, except for 2016 and
2020. Therefore, the improvement of soil water retention of BI was greater than that of SI. Compared with CK, the seasonal average
SWC increased by 5.9%, 16.9%, 16.2%, 12.8% and 11.1% under BI in 2016–2020 growth seasons, increased by -0.4%, 7.0%, 8.2%
6.0% and 6.0% under SI (Fig. 1f). Five-year averaged SWC of SI and BI increased by 5.5% and 12.6% compared with CK, respectively
(Fig. S2a).
The soil temperature (ST) has a consistent fluctuation pattern with the change of growth period (Fig. 2), ranging from 17.0 to
37.2℃ during summer maize growing seasons. After one week of sowing, ST of SI was obviously higher than that of BI and SI, and these
warming effects lasted for about a month before disappearing. The averaged ST for BI, SI and CK was 27.3, 27.8 and 26.8 ℃ in 2016
(Figs. 2a), 26.4, 26.9 and 26.1 ℃ in 2017 (Figs. 2b), 26.6, 27.0 and 26.0℃ in 2018 (Figs. 2c), 24.2, 24.7 and 24.0℃ in 2019 (Figs. 2d)
and 24.0, 24.5 23.6℃ in 2020 (Fig. 2e) growing season, respectively, followed SI>BI>CK trend. Five-year averaged ST of SI and BI
increased by 2.8% and 1.1% compared with CK, respectively (Fig. S2b).
Both SI and BI reduced soil bulk density (SBD) of 0–20 cm soil layer (Fig. 3a). Compared with CK, SBD under BI and SI decreased by
5.4% and 4.4% at the end of 5-year experiment, respectively. However, the value of soil porosity (SP), field capacity (FC), pH, SOC and
total nitrogen (TN) followed BI>SI>CK trend (Fig. 3b-f). Compared with CK, SP, FC and pH increased by 5.7%, 10.2% and 2.0% under
BI, increased by 4.7%, 4.0% and 1.1% under SI at the end of 5-year experiment, respectively (Fig. 3b, c and d). Both BI and SI
significantly increased SOC and TN (p<0.05) over control. BI increased SOC and TN by 34.6% and 11.5%, while SI increased by 27.9%
and 10.1% at the end of 5-year experiment compared with CK, respectively (Fig. 3e and f). Five-year averaged available nitrogen (AN,
NO−3 − N+NH+ 4 − N) of SI and BI increased by 13.2% and 11.2%, SOC of SI and BI increased by 21.6% and 22.7% compared with CK,
respectively (Fig. S2c).

3.3. Greenhouse gas emission and global warming potential

The peak of N2O fluxes mainly occurred in the first weeks after planting (fertilization), reaching 230.5, 229.1 and 219.7 ug m-2 h-1
in 2016, 236.3, 214.0 and 238.5 ug m-2 h-1 in 2017, 211.1, 218.4 and 217.0 ug m-2 h-1 in 2018, 248.3, 303.3 and 279.1 ug m-2 h-1 in
2019 and 142.2, 154.1 and 145.3 ug m-2 h-1 in 2020 under BI, SI and CK treatments, respectively (Fig. 4). Except for the peak of N2O
emissions fluxes from treatment BI was higher than those from treatment SI in 2016 and 2017, the emissions peak from treatment BI in
the following three years (2018, 2019 and 2020) were lower than those from treatment SI, and even lower than those from treatment
CK. BI significantly reduced seasonal N2O emission, but SI significantly increased seasonal N2O emission. The seasonal emission of N2O
was 774.4, 699.3, 663.8, 644.5 and 540.1 g ha-1 season-1 under BI, was 957.2, 985.0, 1057.1, 1086.5 and 1025.8 g ha-1 season-1 under
SI, was 841.3, 801.7, 816.8, 823.7 and 744.6 g ha-1 season-1 under CK in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 growing seasons,
respectively. Compared with CK, the seasonal N2O emission decreased by 7.9%, 12.8%, 18.7%, 21.8% and 27.5% under BI, increased
by 13.8%, 22.9%, 29.4%, 31.9% and 37.8% under SI in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 growing seasons, respectively. On average,

Fig. 2. The variations in soil temperature (ST, ℃) in 2016 (a), 2017 (b), 2018 (c), 2019 (d) and 2020 (e) summer maize growing seasons, and
averaged ST in each growing seasons (f). BI, biochar incorporation; SI, straw incorporation; CK, no straw and biochar incorporation.

6
J. Lu et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103683

Fig. 3. Effects of biochar and straw incorporation on soil bulk density (a), soil porosity (b), field capacity (c), pH (d), soil organic carbon (e) and
total nitrogen (f). BI, biochar incorporation; SI, straw incorporation; CK, no straw and biochar incorporation.

the N2O emission decreased by 17.5% under BI, while increased by 26.9% under SI compared with CK, respectively.
Soil CO2 fluxes exhibits multiple peaks during summer maize growing seasons, especially in 2018, 2019 and 2020 (Fig. 5). The CO2
fluxes varied from 72.9 to 1064.3 mg m-2 h-1 in 2016–2020 growing seasons. The seasonal emission of CO2 was 8908.4, 10142.0,
11698.2, 11242.6 and 8392.2 kg ha-1 season-1 under BI, was 10302.8, 11981.3, 14337.9, 14064.2 and 10710.0 kg ha-1 season-1 under
SI, was 8193.2, 9048.7, 10272.3, 9575.5 and 6063.2 kg ha-1 season-1 under CK in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 growing seasons,
respectively. Compared with CK, the seasonal CO2 emission increased by 8.7%, 12.1%, 13.9%, 17.4% and 38.4% under BI and
increased by 25.7%, 32.4%, 39.6%, 46.9% and 76.6% under SI in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 growing seasons, respectively. On
average, the CO2 emission increased by 16.8% and 42.3% under BI and SI compared with CK, respectively.
Both BI and SI increased the GWP during summer maize growing seasons compared to CK (Fig. 6a). In 2016, GWP followed a trend
of SI> BI> CK, but there was no significant difference among three treatments (p>0.05). In 2017 and 2018 growing seasons, GWP of SI
significantly higher than that of BI and CK (p<0.05), and insignificant difference was observed between BI and CK. In 2019 and 2020
growing seasons, GWP of SI was significantly higher than that of BI, and GWP of BI significantly higher than that of CK. The 5-year
average GWP of SI, BI and CK presented significant difference in pairwise, followed SI>BI>CK trend. Compared with CK, 5-year
average GWP of SI and BI increase of 57.9% and 24.6%, respectively.

3.4. Grain yield and greenhouse gas emission intensity

BI significantly improved grain yield (GY) of summer maize, but the impacts of SI on GY was uncertain (Fig. 7a). Specifically,
compared with CK, GY in the first year for SI was significantly decreased by 16.9%, and showed an insignificant difference in the
second year. GY of SI and CK was significantly lower than that of BI in the first two years of the trial. During third to fifth year of the
experiment, the GY of SI and BI had insignificant difference, both significantly higher than that of CK. The highest GY (9.4 t ha-1, 5-year
mean value) was observed at the BI treatment, significantly increased by 11.3% and 25.8% compared to SI (8.4 t ha-1) and CK (7.5 t ha-
1
), respectively (Fig. 7a). The grain yield of SI significantly increased by 13.0% compared to CK. The yield stability (YS) of BI is
significantly higher than that of the treatment SI, but had insignificant difference with CK. Compared with CK, the YS of BI decreased
by 9.7%, but the YS of SI significantly decreased by 39.1% (p<0.05, Fig. 7b).
The GHGI of SI significantly higher than that of CK and BI except that GHGI of SI had insignificant difference with CK in 2018 and
2019 growing seasons (Fig. 6b). Compared with CK, GHGI of SI increased by 49.5%, 33.4%, 20.5%, 14.5% and 37.8%, while GHGI of
BI decreased by 11.4%, 9.9%, 9.8%, 10.5% and -3.4% in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 growing seasons. The 5-year averaged
GHGI was 1.2, 1.7 and 1.3 kg CO2-eq kg-1 grain yield. Compared with CK, SI significantly increased 32.0% GHGI, while BI significantly
decreased 8.9% GHGI.

7
J. Lu et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103683

Fig. 4. Dynamic changes in N2O fluxes and cumulative N2O emissions (mean±SD) in 2016 (a), 2017 (b), 2018 (c), 2019 (d), 2020 (e) growing
seasons and 5-year averaged cumulative N2O emissions (f).

3.5. GHGI change tracing

Based on piecewise structural equation model (SEM), SI had a directly and significantly positive effect on SWC, ST, SOC and
available nitrogen (AN) (Fig. 8a). However, BI had a directly and significantly positive effect on SWC, AN and SOC (Fig. 8b). Pre­
cipitation had a directly and significantly positive effect on SWC and SOC, while had a directly and significantly negative effect on ST
and AN. This trend was consistent under both SI and BI condition (Fig. 8). Under SI condition, the grain yield was directly and
positively influenced by SWC and SOC; the seasonal CO2 emission was directly and positively influenced by SI and SWC×ST; the
seasonal N2O emission was only directly and positively influenced by SOC×AN (Fig. 8a). However, the grain yield of BI was only
directly and positively influenced by SWC; the seasonal CO2 emission was only directly and positively influenced by SWC×ST under BI
conditions (Fig. 8b).
Attribution analysis showed that agricultural management shifted from CK to SI, the emission of N2O contributes 1.9% to the
increased GHGI, and the emission of CO2 contributes 76.4% to the increased GHGI (Fig. 9a). The grain yield increase contributes to a
decrease of GHGI, and the grain yield increase contributes 22% to GHGI change under SI condition. Agricultural management shifted
from CK to BI, increased grain yield and decreased N2O emission is beneficial for the reduction of GHGI, and increased CO2 is beneficial
for the increase of GHGI. The emission of CO2, N2O and grain yield contributes 43.2%, 1.8% and 55.0% change of GHGI, respectively

8
J. Lu et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103683

Fig. 5. Dynamic of CO2 fluxes and cumulative CO2 emissions (mean±SD) in 2016 (a), 2017 (b), 2018 (c), 2019 (d), 2020 (e) growing seasons and 5-
year averaged cumulative CO2 emissions (f). BI, biochar incorporation; SI, straw incorporation; CK, no straw and biochar incorporation.

(Fig. 9b).

4. Discussion

4.1. Soil physicochemical properties

Reducing soil bulk density is an important measure for improving soil quality (Zhang et al., 2021). Lower soil bulk density is
beneficial for retaining soil moisture and nutrients, and improving crop water and fertilizer utilization efficiency. In this study, soil
bulk density of BI and SI decreased by 5.4% and 4.4% compared with CK (Fig. 3a). This result was lower than that a 2-year biochar
addition decreased 12.1% soil bulk density (Zhang et al., 2017). The possible reason may be that Zhang et al. (2017) incorporated a
large amount biochar (16 t ha-1 year-1), higher than our incorporation amount (2.6 t ha-1 year-1). Both reductions fall within the re­
ported range of 1–20% (8.8% average, Blanco-Canqui., 2021) caused by biochar incorporation. Correspondingly, an experiment re­
ported that at the end of a 4-year straw incorporation, the soil bulk density decreased by 3.7%, 3.4% and 2.0% under 13.5, 9.0 and 4.5 t
ha-1 year-1, respectively (Zhang et al., 2015). Guo et al. (2022) conducted a 2-year field experiment suggested that the mean soil bulk
density under straw (about 9 t ha-1 year-1) and biochar (about 3 t ha-1 year-1) incorporation decreased by 3.1% and 4.2% at 0–10 cm
and 4.2% and 6.0% at 10–20 cm soil layer, respectively, which is similar to the results of this study. From this, it can be seen that the

9
J. Lu et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103683

Fig. 6. Global warming potential (GWP, a) and greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI, b) in different treatments (BI, biochar incorporation; SI,
straw incorporation; CK, no straw and biochar addition) in 2016–2020 growing seasons. BI, biochar incorporation; SI, straw incorporation; CK, no
straw and biochar incorporation.

Fig. 7. Comparisons of maize grain yield (a) and yield stability (b) between treatments during 2016–2020 experimental seasons. BI, biochar
incorporation; SI, straw incorporation; CK, no straw and biochar incorporation.

changes of soil bulk density are not only sensitive to the type of organic material, but also influenced by incorporation amount.
In this study, soil porosity, field capacity and pH of SI had insignificant difference with BI and CK, but those value of BI was
significantly higher than that of CK (Fig. 3b, c and d), which means that the improvement in soil porosity, field capacity and pH of BI
was more pronounced than SI. The possible reason was that biochar has higher porosity and surface area, and lower density (Luo et al.,
2023; Zhang et al., 2021), which directly lead to an increase in porosity and a decrease in soil bulk density. Zhang et al. (2021) and
Chen et al. (2013) suggested that the porosity and specific surface area increased after the straw carbonization, which further indicates
that the incorporation of biochar has a larger improvement on soil porosity than the straw incorporation. The increase of soil porosity
significantly enhances the field capacity (Abrol et al., 2016, Fig. 3c). In this study, soil water content of BI was significantly higher than
that of SI and CK across five maize growth seasons (Fig. 1). This conclusion was consistent with Brockhoff et al. (2010), who reported
that the addition of biochar retained more water than controlled trials in sandy soil.
Our study also showed that the soil organic carbon and total nitrogen of BI and SI significantly higher than that of CK (Fig. 3e and f).
The possible reason was that both biochar and straw have rich carbon and nitrogen content. Although the carbon and nitrogen inputs
of SI was higher than that of BI (Table 1), the increase in soil organic carbon and total nitrogen of BI was higher than that of SI (Fig. 3e
and f). The possible reason was that crop straw is not a stable carbon, and biochar is highly stable and resistant to microbial degra­
dation (Luo et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2009). The consistent result also was suggested by Wang et al. (2023), who reported that soil
organic carbon in the 0–60 cm soil layer under biochar addition is 2.56% higher than that under straw addition.

4.2. Grain yield and yield stability

Achieving stable and high grain yield is the primary goal of sustainable agricultural development. Grain yield improvement under
biochar was related to the light and porous nature and large specific surface area of biochar, which allows the soil holding more water

10
J. Lu et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103683

Fig. 8. Piecewise structural equation model assessing the direct and indirect effects of SI, BI and precipitation (P) on soil water content (SWC), soil
temperature (ST), available nitrogen (AN), soil organic carbon (SOC), yield, CO2 and N2O emission. Panel (a) was conducted combined CK and SI,
panel (b) was conducted combined CK and BI. The numbers adjacent to the lines are the standardized path coefficients. Baby blue and red lines
indicate negative and positive relationships, respectively. And the width of an arrow indicates the strength of the relationship.

Fig. 9. The contribution of the emission of CO2 and N2O, and grain yield to the change of GHGI under SI (a) and BI (b) condition compared with CK.
A minus value indicates that the contribution of factor is opposite to the direction of GHGI change.

to cope with seasonal drought (Fig. 1). Our results showed that the grain yield (5-year average) increased by 13.0%and 25.8% under SI
and BI condition (Fig. 7a). This result was consistent with Guo et al. (2022) reported that the grain yield increased by 3.7%-7.1% and
5.8%-15.6% under SI and BI. In this study, BI and CK had insignificant difference in yield stability, both significantly higher than that
of SI (Fig. 7b). The main reason for this phenomenon is that SI had insignificant increase in grain yield under dry years (even lower than
that of CK), but had significant increase under normal and wet year (Fig. 7a). The possible reason was that lower precipitation is not
conducive to straw decomposition and mineralization, releasing fewer nutrients for maize timely after the incorporation of crop straw
(Liu et al., 2023; Islam et al., 2022). In this study, summer maize suffered severe drought stress in 2016 and 2017 growing seasons,
performed as P/ET0 less than 0.5 (Table 2), which directly leads to a decrease in maize grain yield (Fig. 7a). In 2016 growing season,
the grain yield of SI is not only lower than that of BI, but also lower than that of CK, which directly leads to lower yield stability
(Fig. 7b). During the growing seasons of 2016 and 2017, summer maize suffered from severe drought stress, but the grain yield in 2017
was higher than that in 2016 (Fig. 7a). The possible reason was that the drought in 2017 occurred during the maize seedling and
jointing stages (Fig. 1b), while the drought in 2016 occurred during the grain filling stage (Fig. 1a). The impact of water stress during
the grain filling stage on grain yield is higher than that during the seedling and jointing stages (Wan et al., 2021). In addition, the air
temperature and soil temperature in drought period was higher (Fig. 2a and b, and Fig. S1), which may cause maize suffering from the
dual effects of drought and high temperature stress. The concurrent occurrence of drought and heat was more severe for maize growth
than the single stress (Hussain et al., 2019). In summary, we found that in dry years, the effect of straw incorporation on maize yield
was insignificant, and even led to a decrease in grain yield, while the effect of biochar incorporation on grain yield showed an increase
in any rainfall year (Fig. 7a). This indicates that in semi-humid and drought prone areas, even in arid and semi-arid areas, biochar
incorporation is more conducive to high and stable grain yield of maize than straw incorporation (Han et al., 2023).

11
J. Lu et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103683

4.3. Greenhouse gases emission, global warming potential and greenhouse gas emission intensity

Our filed experiment demonstrated that SI significantly increased 26.9% soil N2O emission, while BI significantly decreased 17.5%
soil N2O emission (Fig. 4). This result agrees well with previous research that SI increased 13.2% N2O emission, and BI decreased by
30.3% N2O emission (Liu et al., 2021). Conversely, some studies have reported that accumulated N2O emissions was significantly
decreased by 29.3% and 42.0% under SI and BI condition (Yang et al., 2022). The reasons for these differences may be related to soil
environmental factors. Previous research has reported that the emission of N2O have a positive correlation with soil available nitrogen
(NO−3 − N+NH+ 4 − N) concentration (Liu et al., 2019; Luo et al., 2016). In this study, structural model equation indicates that both SI
and BI can directly and significantly affect soil moisture content, available nitrogen content, and soil organic carbon (Fig. 8), and the
interaction of soil organic carbon and available nitrogen content had direct and significant effect on N2O emission under straw
incorporation (Fig. 8a). In this study, available nitrogen was significantly increased under SI and BI condition (Fig. S2). The possible
reason may be that biochar and straw incorporation introduce a large amount of nitrogen into the soil (Table 1). From this perspective,
the emission of N2O will increase under BI, which is contrary to the results of this study that BI reduces N2O emissions. Therefore, the
reduction of N2O emissions under BI is influenced by other factors. Previous research has reported that BI can increase the abundance
of soil microbial nosZ genes, thereby promoting the reduction of N2O (Van Zwieten et al., 2014). Additionally, biochar is a high
porosity and large specific surface area material, and BI incorporation significantly increased soil porosity (Fig. 3b). The porous
structure of biochar is conducive to the diffusion of O2 and increases soil aeration (Zhu et al., 2022). The higher O2 content in the soil
will constrain denitrification, coupling with higher pH (Fig. 3d) that conducive to the reductase activity of N2O, thereby reducing the
emission of N2O (Obia et al., 2015; Cayuela et al., 2014). Contrary to the recalcitrant C of biochar, straw contains a large amount of
unstable carbon that is easily utilized by microorganisms (Liu et al., 2015), which enhances biological activity, significantly reduces
soil O2 content, promotes denitrification process, and accelerates N2O emissions (Zhu et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2008).
Soil properties (e.g., soil pH, moisture and temperature) and substrate availability affect microbial activity, thereby affecting soil
carbon mineralization (Badagliacca et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2013). In the present study, both SI and BI significantly increased soil CO2
fluxes, but the increase induced by SI was much greater than that by BI (Fig. 5). The possible reason may be explained by the
incorporation of straw or straw-derived biochar promoted soil microbial activity (Teutscherova et al., 2017; Jones et al., 2011;
Cookson et al., 1998), and increased soil respiration on account of straw or straw-derived biochar supplied labile C for soil microbes
(Badagliacca et al., 2017; Jones et al., 2011). However, the incorporation of biochar can reduce soil dissolved organic carbon content
and decrease C-degrading enzyme activities, which reducing soil CO2 emission from native soil organic carbon (Ventura et al., 2019; Li
et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2014). Straw or straw-derived biochar increased grain yield of summer maize in this study, leading to an increase
in maize root and plant litter biomass in soil, thereby increasing soil CO2 emission, which may be another reason for increasing soil CO2
emission. In this study, the incorporation of biochar significantly reduced GWP compared to the straw incorporation, and the
incorporation of straw increased the GWP compared to CK (Fig. 6a). Fortunately, the greenhouse gas emission intensity of BI was 8.9%
lower than that of CK (Fig. 6b), mainly because BI achieved high and stable grain yield (Fig. 7). Therefore, biochar incorporation can
achieve high and stable yields while also reducing soil greenhouse gas emission intensity.
In summary, straw incorporation significantly increased CO2 and N2O emissions, whereas biochar incorporation significantly
raised CO2 emissions while reducing N2O emissions. Under SI and BI conditions, the GWP increased by 57.9% and 24.6%, respectively.
The transition from CK to SI resulted in 32.0% elevation of GHGI, where CO2 emissions contributed up to 76.4% to the change in GHGI
(Fig. 9a). Conversely, the shift from CK to BI led to a significantly increase in grain yield, resulting in an 8.9% decrease in GHGI, with
grain yield contributing 55.0% to the change in GHGI (Fig. 9b).

4.4. Implications, limitations and outlook

Comparing straw incorporation or no straw and biochar incorporation, biochar incorporation not only improve maize grain yield
and soil environment but also reduce soil GHG emissions. From this perspective, converting raw straw into biochar incorporation acts
as an environment-friendly strategy for higher yield harvest, which contributes to the achievement of dual carbon goals and sus­
tainable agricultural development. However, the production of biochar requires a certain amount of energy consumption and also
generates some GHG emissions. Land is the most important means of agricultural production, and improving soil quality is an inev­
itable choice for sustainable agricultural development. Therefore, the improvement of soil quality involves food security and sus­
tainable human development, and it is difficult to assign economic value to it. At the same time, global warming has caused a series of
negative impacts on human development, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions is also an urgent global problem that needs to be
solved. Therefore, it is difficult to assign appropriate economic value to the improvement of soil quality and the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions. From the current production process of biochar, it is economically unfeasible to extensively promote the
return of biochar to the field. Therefore, in the future production of biochar, the use of clean energy should be considered to reduce
consumption, while also improving the yield of biochar and minimizing greenhouse gas emissions in biochar production.

5. Conclusion

This study clearly showed that the incorporation of biochar and raw straw caused a substantial increase in the soil porosity, field
capacity, pH, soil organic carbon and total nitrogen concentration, and the increase under biochar incorporation is higher than that of
straw incorporation. Those changes have resulted in a significant difference in maize grain yield and greenhouse gas emissions.

12
J. Lu et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103683

Specifically, raw straw incorporation significantly increased the emission flux of N2O and CO2, biochar incorporation significantly
increased CO2 emissions but decreased the emission flux of N2O. Biochar incorporation have a more significant increase on maize grain
yield than raw straw incorporation. Changed soil moisture caused by biochar and raw straw incorporation directly and significantly
affects crop yield, and the interaction of soil water and temperature directly and significantly affects CO2 emissions. In summary, both
biochar and raw straw incorporation increase soil carbon sequestration, improve soil quality and crop yield, and significantly increase
global warming potential. Among these changes, the increase of grain yield is obviously higher than the increase of global warming
potential caused by biochar incorporation, which resulted in a significant decrease in greenhouse gas emission intensity. Therefore,
converting raw straw into biochar incorporation is an environment-friendly high-yielding strategy in semi-humid and drought-prone
regions.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Junsheng Lu: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Software, Resources, Project
administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52309053), the Foundation of State Key
Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau (F2010121002–202427) and China Postdoctoral Science
Foundation (2023M731461).

Author’s Statement

Junsheng Lu conceived the research, performed data analysis and interpretation, finalized the design, implemented the research
strategy for this work and wrote the manuscript. Wei Zhang, Xuezhi Liu and Wei Wang conducted experiments, arranged for
experimental materials and analysis and gave suggestions on experimental design and implementation. Wei Zhang, Aziz Khan,
Jianrui Ge and Shicheng Yan revised the manuscript and gave technical suggestions. Youcai Xiong helped with validation, critical
revision and editing of the manuscript.

Appendix A. Supporting information

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.eti.2024.103683.

References

Abrol, V., Ben-Hur, M., Verheijen, F.G.A., Keizer, J.J., Martins, M.A.S., Tenaw, H., Tchehansky, L., Graber, E.R., 2016. Biochar effects on soil water infiltration and
erosion under seal formation conditions: rainfall simulation experiment. J. Soils Sediment. 16 (12), 2709–2719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-016-1448-8.
Ajayi, A.E., Horn, R., 2016. Modification of chemical and hydro-physical properties of two texturally differentiated soils due to varying magnitudes of added biochar.
Soil Till. Res. 164, 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.01.011.
Badagliacca, G., Ruisi, P., Rees, R.M., Saia, S., 2017. An assessment of factors controlling N2O and CO2 emissions from crop residues using different measurement
approaches. Biol. Fertil. Soils 53, 547–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-017-1195-z.
Berhane, M., Xu, M., Liang, Z.Y., Shi, J.L., Wei, G.H., Tian, X.H., 2020. Effects of long-term straw return on soil organic carbon storage and sequestration rate in North
China upland crops: A meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 2686–2701. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15018.
Blanco-Canqui, H., 2021. Does biochar application alleviate soil compaction? Review and data synthesis. Geoderma 404, 115317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoderma.2021.115317.
Brockhoff, S.R., Christians, N.E., Killorn, R.J., Horton, R., Davis, D.D., 2010. Physical and mineral-nutrition properties of sand-based turfgrass root zones amended
with biochar. Agron. J. 102 (6), 1627–1631. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2010.0188.
Cayuela, M.L., van Zwieten, L., Singh, B.P., Jeffery, S., Roig, A., Sánchez-Monedero, M.A., 2014. Biochar’s role in mitigating soil nitrous oxide emissions: a review and
meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 191, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.009.
Chen, Y., Camps-Arbestain, M., Shen, Q., Singh, B., Cayuela, M.L., 2018. The long-term role of organic amendments in building soil nutrient fertility: a meta-analysis
and review. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 111 (2–3), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-017-9903-5.
Chen, Y., Chen, R., Liu, Z., Yu, X., Zheng, S., Yuan, S., 2021. Nitrogen process in stormwater bioretention: the impact of alternate drying and rewetting on nitrogen
migration and transformation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 43803–43814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13802-z.

13
J. Lu et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103683

Chen, Y., Liu, K., Hu, N., Lou, Y., Wang, F., Wang, Y., 2023. Biochemical composition of soil organic matter physical fractions under 32-year fertilization in Ferralic
Cambisol. Carbon Res 2, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44246-022-00034-0.
Chen, W.F., Zhang, W.M., Meng, J., 2013. Advances and prospects in research of biochar utilization in agriculture. Sci. Agric. Sin. 46, 3324–3333. https://doi.org/
10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2013.16.003.
Cookson, W.R., Beare, M.H., Wilson, P.E., 1998. Effects of prior crop residue management on microbial properties and crop residue decomposition. Appl. Soil Ecol. 7,
179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(97)00032-2.
Dhaliwal, S.S., Naresh, R.K., Gupta, R.K., Panwar, A.S., Mahajan, N.C., Singh, R., Mandal, A., 2020. Effect of tillage and straw return on carbon footprints, soil organic
carbon fractions and soil microbial community in different textured soils under rice–wheat rotation: A review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 19 (1), 103–115.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-019-09520-1.
Van Dijk, M., Morley, T., Rau, M.L., Saghai, Y., 2021. A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050.
Nat. Food 2, 494–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00322-9.
Duan, M., Wu, F.P., Jia, Z.K., Wang, S.G., Cai, Y.J., Chang, S.X., 2020. Wheat straw and its biochar differently affect soil properties and field-based greenhouse gas
emission in a Chernozemic soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 56, 1023–1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-020-01479-4.
Egamberdieva, D., Zoghi, Z., Nazarov, K., Wirth, S., Bellingrath-Kimura, S.D., 2020. Plant growth response of broad bean (Vicia faba L.) to biochar amendment of
loamy sand soil under irrigated and drought conditions. Environ. Sustain. 3 (3), 319–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42398-020-00116-y.
Feng, X., Wang, S., 2023. Plant influences on soil microbial carbon pump efficiency. Glob. Change Biol. 29, 3854–3856. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16728.
Gai, X., Liu, H., Liu, J., Zhai, L., Wang, H., Yang, B., Ren, T., Wu, S., Lei, Q., 2019. Contrasting impacts of long-term application of manure and crop straw on residual
nitrate-N along the soil profile in the North China Plain. Sci. Total Environ. 650, 2251–2259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.275.
Gao, F., Li, B., Ren, B., Zhao, B., Liu, P., Zhang, J., 2019. Effects of residue management strategies on greenhouse gases and yield under double cropping of winter
wheat and summer maize. Sci. Total Environ. 687, 1138–1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.146.
Guo, R., Qian, R., Yang, L., Khaliq, A., Han, F., Hussain, S., Zhang, P., Cai, T., Jia, Z.K., Chen, X.L., Ren, X.L., 2022. Interactive effects of maize straw-derived biochar
and N fertilization on soil bulk density and porosity, maize productivity and nitrogen use efficiency in arid areas. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s42729-022-00881-1.
Han, M., Zhang, B., Zhang, Y., Guan, C., 2019. Agricultural CH4 and N2O emissions of major ceconomies: consumption-vs. productions-based perspectives. J. Clean.
Prod. 210, 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.018.
Han, M.X., Zhang, J.S., Zhang, L., Wang, Z.G., 2023. Effect of biochar addition on crop yield, water and nitrogen use efficiency: A meta-analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 420,
138425 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138425.
Huang, W., Wu, F., Han, W., Li, Q., Han, Y., Wang, G., Feng, L., Li, X., Yang, B., Lei, Y., Fan, Z., Xiong, S., Xin, M., Li, Y., Wang, Z., 2022. Carbon footprint of cotton
production in China: composition, spatiotemporal changes and driving factors. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153407 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2022.153407.
Hussain, H.A., Men, S.N., Hussain, S., Chen, Y.L., Ali, S., Zhang, S., Zhang, K.P., Li, Y., Xu, Q.W., Liao, C.Q., Wang, L.C., 2019. Interactive effects of drought and heat
stresses on morpho- physiological attributes, yield, nutrient uptake and oxidative status in maize hybrids. Sci. Rep. 9, 3890. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-
40362-7.
Islam, M.U., Guo, Z., Jiang, F., Peng, X., 2022. Does straw return increase crop yield in the wheat-maize cropping system in China? A meta-analysis. Field Crop. Res.
279, 108447 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108447.
Jones, D.L., Murphy, D.V., Khalid, M., Ahmad, W., Edwards-Jones, G., DeLuca, T.H., 2011. Short-term biochar-induced increase in soil CO2 release is both biotically
and abiotically mediated. Soil Biol. Biochem 43, 1723–1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.018.
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. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 140, 309–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.12.005.
Laird, D.A., Fleming, P., Davis, D.D., Horton, R., Wang, B., Karlen, D.L., 2010. Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural soil.
Geoderma 158 (3-4), 443–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.05.013.
Lee, J.W., Hawkins, B., Day, D.M., Reicosky, D.C., 2010. Sustainability: the capacity of smokeless biomass pyrolysis for energy production, global carbon capture and
sequestration. Energy Environ. Sci. 3, 1695–1705. https://doi.org/10.1039/C004561F.
Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., 2015. Biochar for Environmental Management. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203762264.
Liu, C., Lu, M., Cui, J., Li, B., Fang, C., 2014. Effects of straw carbon input on carbon dynamics in agricultural soils: a meta-analysis. Glob. Chang Biol. 20, 1366–1381.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12517.
Liu, X.R., Ren, J.P., Zhang, Q.W., Liu, C., 2019. Long-term effects of biochar addition and straw return on N2O fluxes and the related functional gene abundances
under wheat-maize rotation system in the North China Plain. Appl. Soil Ecol. 135, 44–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2018.11.006.
Liu, D., Song, C., Xin, Z., Fang, C., Liu, Z., Xu, Y., 2023. Agricultural management strategies for balancing yield increase, carbon sequestration, and emission reduction
after straw return for three major grain crops in China: a meta-analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 340, 117965 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117965.
Liu, X.R., Tang, Z.M., Zhang, Q.W., Kong, W.D., 2021. The contrasting effects of biochar and straw on N2O emissions in the maize season in intensively farmed soil.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 29806–29819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12722-2.
Liu, S., Yan, C.R., He, W.Q., Chen, B.Q., Zhang, Y.Q., Liu, Q., Liu, E.K., 2015. Effects of different tillage practices on soil water-stable aggregation and organic carbon
distribution in dryland farming in northern China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 35 (4), 65–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2015.06.005.
Li, H., Dai, M., Dai, S., Dong, X., 2018a. Current status and environment impact of direct straw return in China’s cropland - a review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 159,
293–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.05.014.
Li, Y., Feng, H., Wu, W.J., Jiang, Y., Sun, J., Zhang, Y.F., Chen, H., Li, C., Dong, Q.G., Siddique, K.H.M., Chen, J., 2022. Decreased greenhouse gas intensity of winter
wheat production under plastic film mulching in semi-arid areas. Agric. Water Manag. 274, 107941 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107941.
Luo, X.X., Chen, L., Zheng, H., Chang, J.J., Wang, H.F., Wang, Z.Y., Xing, B.S., 2016. Biochar addition reduced net N mineralization of a coastal wetland soil in the
Yellow River Delta, China. Geoderma 282, 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.07.015.
Luo, L., Wang, J.X., Lv, J.T., Liu, Z.G., Sun, T., R, Yang, Y., Zhu, Y.G., 2023. Carbon Sequestration Strategies in Soil Using Biochar: Advances, Challenges, and
Opportunities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 57, 11357–11372. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c02620.
Lu, W., Ding, W., Zhang, J., Li, Y., Luo, J., Bolan, N., Xie, Z., 2014. Biochar suppressed the decomposition of organic carbon in a cultivated sandy loam soil: a negative
priming effect. Soil Biol. Biochem 76, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.04.029.
Lu, J.S., Hu, T.T., Zhang, B.C., Wang, L., Yang, S.H., Fan, J.L., Yan, S.C., Zhang, F.C., 2021. Nitrogen fertilizer management effects on soil nitrate leaching, grain yield
and economic benefit of summer maize in Northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 247, 106739 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106739.
Lu, J.S., Zhang, W., Li, Y., Liu, S.T., Khan, A., Yan, S.C., Hu, T.T., Xiong, Y.C., 2023. Effects of reduced tillage with stubble remaining and nitrogen application on soil
aggregation, soil organic carbon and grain yield in maize-wheat rotation system. Eur. J. Agric. 149, 126920 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2023.126920.
Ma, L.J., Kong, F.X., Lv, X.B., Wang, Z., Meng, Y.L., 2021. Responses of greenhouse gas emissions to different straw management methods with the same amount of
carbon input in cotton field. Soil . Res. 213, 105126 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105126.
Ma, L.J., Kong, F.X., Wang, Z., Luo, Y., Lv, X.B., Zhou, Z.G., Meng, Y.L., 2019. Growth and yield of cotton as affected by different straw returning modes with an
equivalent carbon input. Field Crops Res 243, 107616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.107616.
Ma, Y.Q., Woolf, D., Fan, M.S., Qiao, L., Li, R., Lehmann, J., 2023. Global crop production increase by soil organic carbon. Nat. Geosci. 16, 1159–1165. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41561-023-01302-3.
Miller, M.N., Zebarth, B.J., Dandie, C.E., Burton, D.L., Goyer, C., Trevors, J.T., 2008. Crop residue influence on denitrification, N2O emissions and denitrifier
community abundance in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem 40, 2553–2562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.06.024.
Nie, C., Yang, X., Niazi, N.K., Xu, X., Wen, Y., Rinklebe, J., Ok, Y.S., Xu, S., Wang, H., 2018. Impact of sugarcane bagasse-derived biochar on heavy metal availability
and microbial activity: a field study. Chemosphere 200, 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.02.134.

14
J. Lu et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 35 (2024) 103683

Obia, A., Cornelissen, G., Mulder, J., Dörsch, P., 2015. Effect of soil pH increase by biochar on NO, N2O and N2 production during denitrification in acid soils. PLoS
One 10, e0138781.
Palansooriya, K.N., Wong, J.T.F., Hashimoto, Y., Huang, L., Rinklebe, J., Chang, S.X., Bolan, N., Wang, H., Ok, Y.S., 2019. Response of microbial communities to
biochar amended soils: a critical review. Biochar 1 (1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-019-00009-2.
Qin, X., Huang, T., Lu, C., Dang, P., Zhang, M., Guan, X.-K., Wen, P.-F., Wang, T.-C., Chen, Y., Siddique, K.H.M., 2021. Benefits and limitations of straw mulching and
incorporation on maize yield, water use efficiency, and nitrogen use efficiency. Agric. Water Manag. 256, 107128.
Rui, Y.C., Jackson, R., Cotrufo, M.F., Sanford, G.R., Spiesman, B.J., Deiss, L., Culman, S.W., Liang, C., Ruark, M., 2022. Persistent soil carbon enhanced in Mollisols by
well-managed grasslands but not annual grain or dairy forage cropping systems. No. e2118931119 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 119. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.2118931119.
Suddick, E.C., Six, J., 2013. An estimation of annual nitrous oxide emissions and soil quality following the amendment of high temperature walnut shell biochar and
compost to a small-scale vegetable crop rotation. Sci. Total Environ. 465, 298–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.094.
Teutscherova, N., Vazquez, E., Masaguer, A., Navas, M., Scow, K.M., Schmidt, R., Benito, M., 2017. Comparison of lime- and biochar-mediated pH changes in
nitrification and ammonia oxidizers in degraded acid soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 53, 811–821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-017-1222-0.
Troy, S.M., Lawlor, P.G., O’ Flynn, C.J., Healy, M.G., 2013. Impact of biochar addition to soil on greenhouse gas emissions following pig manure application. Soil Biol.
Biochem. 60, 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.01.019.
Ventura, M., Alberti, G., Panzacchi, P., Vedove, G.D., Miglietta, F., Tonon, G., 2019. Biochar mineralization and priming effect in a poplar short rotation coppice from
a 3-year field experiment. Biol. Fertil. Soils 55, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-018-1329-y.
Wang, N., Chuang, Z.Z., Xue, X.M., Yu, J.G., Shi, X.X., Ma, L.Q., Li, H.N., 2017. Biochar decreases nitrogen oxide and enhances methane emissions via altering
microbial community composition of anaerobic paddy soil. Sci. Total Environ. 581–582, 689–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.12.181.
Wang, Y., Pang, J., Zhang, M., Tian, Z., Wei, T., Jia, Z., Ren, X., Zhang, P., 2023. Is adding biochar be better than crop straw for improving soil aggregates stability and
organic carbon contents in film mulched fields in semiarid regions? Evidence of 5-year field experiment. J. Environ. Manag. 338, 117711 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117711.
Wang, H., Shen, M., Hui, D., Chen, J., Sun, G., Wang, X., Lu, C., Sheng, J., Chen, L., Luo, Y., Zheng, J., Zhang, Y., 2019. Straw incorporation influences soil organic
carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emission, and crop yields in a Chinese rice (Oryza sativa L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cropping system. Soil Tillage Res
195, 104377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104377.
Wan, W., Liu, Z., Li, K.J., Wang, G.M., Wu, H.Q., Wang, Q.Y., 2021. Drought monitoring of the maize planting areas in Northeast and North China Plain. Agric. Water
Manag. 245, 106636 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106636.
Wu, F., Jia, Z., Wang, S., Chang, S.X., Startsev, A., 2013. Contrasting effects of wheat straw and its biochar on greenhouse gas emissions and enzyme activities in a
Chernozemic soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 49, 555–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-012-0745-7.
Yang, X., Sun, Q., Yuan, J., Fu, S.F., Lan, Y., Jiang, X.M., Meng, J., Han, X.R., Chen, W.F., 2022. Successive corn stover and biochar applications mitigate N2O
emissions by altering soil physicochemical properties and N-cycling-related enzyme activities: A five-year field study in Northeast China. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ.
340, 108183 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.108183.
Yuan, J., Xiang, J., Liu, D., Kang, H., He, T., Kim, S., Lin, Y., Freeman, C., Ding, W., 2019. Rapid growth in greenhouse gas emissions from the adoption of industrial-
scale aquaculture. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 318–322. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0425-9.
Zhang, A., Cheng, G., Hussain, Q., Zhang, M., Feng, H., Dyck, M., Sun, B., Zhao, Y., Chen, H., Chen, J., Wang, X., 2017. Contrasting effects of straw and straw–derived
biochar application on net global warming potential in the Loess Plateau of China. Field Crops Res 205, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.02.006.
Zhang, H.W., Liang, Q., Peng, Z.P., Zhao, Y., Tan, Y.C., Zhang, X., Bol, R., 2023. Response of greenhouse gases emissions and yields to irrigation and straw practices in
wheat-maize cropping system. Agric. Water Manag. 282, 108281 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108281.
Zhang, Y.F., Wang, J.M., Feng, Y., 2021. The effects of biochar addition on soil physicochemical properties: A review. Catena 202, 105284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
catena.2021.105284.
Zhang, P., Wei, T., Li, Y.L., Wang, K., Jia, Z.K., Han, Q.F., Ren, X.L., 2015. Effects of straw incorporation on the stratification of the soil organic C, total N and C:N ratio
in a semiarid region of China. Soil Tillage Res 153, 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.04.008.
Zhao, X., He, L., Zhang, Z., Wang, H., Zhao, L., 2016. Simulation of accumulation and mineralization (CO2 release) of organic carbon in chernozem under different
straw return ways after corn harvesting. Soil Tillage Res 156, 148–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.11.001.
Zhao, D.Q., Ling, J., Wu, G., Liu, Z.X., Zhou, S.L., Wen, Y., Beule, L., 2023. The incorporation of straw into the subsoil increases C, N, and P enzyme activities and
nutrient supply by enriching distinctive functional microorganisms. Land Degrad. Dev. 34 (5), 1297–1310. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4533.
Zhu, L.X., Xiao, Q., Shen, Y.F., Li, S.Q., 2017. Effects of biochar and maize straw on the short-term carbon and nitrogen dynamics in a cultivated silty loam in China.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res 24, 1019–1029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7829-0.
Zhu, K., Ye, X., Ran, H.Y., Zhang, P.X., Wang, G., 2022. Contrasting effects of straw and biochar on microscale heterogeneity of soil O2 and pH: Implication for N2O
emissions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 166, 108564 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108564.
Van Zwieten, L., Singh, B.P., Kimber, S.W.L., Murphy, D.V., Macdonald, L.M., Rust, J., Morris, S., 2014. An incubation study investigating the mechanisms that impact
N2O flux from soil following biochar application. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 191, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.02.030.

15