Global evaluation of a new biochar model for supporting climate-smart agriculture
Wei Ren , Yogesh Kumar , Yawen Huang
Biochar ›› 2026, Vol. 8 ›› Issue (1) : 95
Biochar is a promising climate-smart agriculture (CSA) solution to sustainably support food security while mitigating the adverse impacts of climate change on agroecosystems. Yet, its effectiveness across diverse environments is not well quantified. We developed a process-based biochar model and used it to evaluate biochar’s impacts on agroecosystem production and the dynamics of soil biogeochemical cycles (e.g., key CSA indicators such as crop yield, soil organic carbon (SOC), and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions) across 48 globally distributed field experiment sites. The biochar model was calibrated and evaluated in maize, wheat, and soybean cropping systems, with an average root mean square error of 1878.9 kg ha−1 (R2 = 0.78) for crop yield, 4129.3 kg C ha−1 (R2 = 0.72) for SOC, and 1995.7 kg CO2 ha−1 (R2 = 0.91) for GHG emissions. The model accuracy varied across environments, with yield predictions performing better in tropical (R2 = 0.90) and temperate (R2 = 0.81) zones and on medium-textured soils (R2 = 0.87), but declining in arid regions (R2 = 0.55) and on coarse soils (R2 = 0.65). Simulation accuracy of SOC and CO2 was higher in maize than in soybean systems. Biochar application rates also influenced model performance, with medium rates best for crop yield and high rates optimal for SOC and CO2 emissions. These results highlight the need for robust modeling tools to optimize biochar application across diverse soil and climate conditions. These tools can be important for stakeholders, from farmers to policymakers, and can help refine biochar management strategies and advance global goals of sustainable intensification and net-zero agricultural systems.
Highlights
| • | A process-based biochar model was developed and calibrated using observational data from 48 global field studies. |
| • | Model’s performance was evaluated across a range of climate conditions, soil types, cropping systems, and biochar application rates. |
| • | The model serves as a robust tool for optimizing site-specific biochar application and advancing climate-smart agriculture. |
Biochar modeling / Climate-smart agriculture / DLEM-Ag-Biochar / Crop yield / Soil organic carbon (SOC) / Greenhouse gases (GHGs)
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
American Farmland Trust (2026). Biochar in agriculture toolkit. Farmland Information Center. https://farmlandinfo.org/biochar-in-agriculture-toolkit/. Accessed 1 Feb 2026. |
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
Huang Y, Ren W, Lindsey LE, Wang L, Hui D, Tao B, Jacinthe PA, Tian H (2024) No-tillage farming enhances widespread nitrate leaching in the US Midwest. Environ. Res. Lett. 19(10): 104062 |
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
International Biochar Initiative (2026) Biochar classification tool. https://biochar-international.org/resources/biochar-classification-tool/. Accessed 1 Feb 2026 |
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
Lehmann J, Joseph S (Eds) (2015) Biochar for environmental management: Science, technology and implementation, 2nd edn. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203762264 |
| [51] |
|
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
|
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
|
| [56] |
|
| [57] |
|
| [58] |
|
| [59] |
|
| [60] |
|
| [61] |
|
| [62] |
|
| [63] |
|
| [64] |
|
| [65] |
|
| [66] |
Ren W (2019) Towards an integrated agroecosystem modeling approach for climate-smart agricultural management. In Bridging among disciplines by synthesizing soil and plant processes, Vol. 8, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America Books, USA, pp 127–144 |
| [67] |
|
| [68] |
|
| [69] |
|
| [70] |
|
| [71] |
|
| [72] |
|
| [73] |
|
| [74] |
|
| [75] |
|
| [76] |
|
| [77] |
|
| [78] |
|
| [79] |
|
| [80] |
|
| [81] |
|
| [82] |
|
| [83] |
|
| [84] |
|
| [85] |
|
| [86] |
|
| [87] |
|
| [88] |
|
| [89] |
|
| [90] |
|
| [91] |
|
| [92] |
|
| [93] |
|
| [94] |
|
| [95] |
|
| [96] |
|
| [97] |
|
| [98] |
|
| [99] |
|
| [100] |
|
| [101] |
|
| [102] |
|
| [103] |
|
| [104] |
|
| [105] |
|
| [106] |
|
| [107] |
|
| [108] |
|
| [109] |
|
| [110] |
|
| [111] |
|
| [112] |
|
The Author(s)
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |