MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413007063 · doi:10.3390/land14081605

Biochar Affects Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Urban Forestry Waste

2025· article· en· W4413007063 on OpenAlexafffund
Kumuduni Niroshika Palansooriya, Tamanna Mamun Novera, D. Qin, Zhengfeng An, Scott X. Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueLand · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMunicipal Solid Waste Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiocharGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceUrban forestryEnvironmental protectionForestryCarbon sequestrationCharcoalWaste managementAgroforestryEnvironmental engineeringCarbon dioxidePyrolysisGeographyChemistryEcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban forests are vital to cities because they provide a range of ecosystem services, including carbon (C) sequestration, air purification, and urban cooling. However, urban forestry also generates significant amounts of organic waste, such as grass clippings, pruned tree branches, and fallen tree leaves and woody debris that can contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions if not properly managed. In this study, we investigated the effect of wheat straw biochar (produced at 500 °C) on GHG emissions from two types of urban forestry waste: green waste (GW) and yard waste (YW), using a 100-day laboratory incubation experiment. Overall, GW released more CO2 than YW, but biochar addition reduced cumulative CO2 emissions by 9.8% in GW and by 17.6% in YW. However, biochar increased CH4 emissions from GW and reduced the CH4 sink strength of YW. Biochar also had contrasting effects on N2O emissions, increasing them by 94.3% in GW but decreasing them by 61.4% in YW. Consequently, the highest global warming potential was observed in biochar-amended GW (125.3 g CO2-eq kg−1). Our findings emphasize that the effect of biochar on GHG emissions varies with waste type and suggest that selecting appropriate biochar types is critical for mitigating GHG emissions from urban forestry waste.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandSame topicMunicipal Solid Waste ManagementFrench-language works237,207