Both pathways start from the same annual carbon input from crop residue or wood waste. One is pyrolyzed (heated without oxygen) into biochar before returning it to the soil; the other is left as raw organic matter. Each soil carbon pool C obeys first-order decay with continuous input:
dC/dt = In − k·C
C(t+1) = C(t)·e^(−k) + (In/k)·(1 − e^(−k)) [exact per-year step]
Pyrolysis temperature sets two things, following the general trend reported in biochar life-cycle studies (Lehmann & Joseph; Woolf et al. 2010; Zimmerman 2010):
Biochar-C yield Y(T) ≈ 0.55 − 4.2e-4·(T − 300) [fraction of feedstock C retained as biochar]
Biochar MRT(T) ≈ 50 · 10^((T − 300)/400) years [higher pyrolysis T → more aromatic, slower-decaying C]
Both decay rates are temperature-sensitive via a Q10 relationship, the standard way soil science scales decomposition with warming — a 10 °C rise multiplies the rate by Q10:
k(T_soil) = k_ref · Q10^((T_soil − 15)/10)
Labile OM: Q10 = 2.0 (fresh biomass decomposes fast and is heat-sensitive)
Biochar: Q10 = 1.3 (aromatic carbon is chemically far more heat-stable)
- Pyrolysis temperature — trades yield for stability: higher heat retains less carbon per pass but what remains resists decomposition for far longer.
- Feedstock input — the annual carbon supply rate applied to both pools identically, so the comparison stays fair.
- Soil temperature — a warmer soil accelerates both pools' decomposition, but hits the labile pool much harder.
- CO₂ avoided — the extra carbon held in the biochar column versus the untreated baseline, converted to CO₂ mass by the 44/12 molar-mass ratio — the net additional atmospheric CO₂ this pathway keeps out of circulation.
This is a simplified, illustrative version of the mechanism used in real biochar carbon-credit accounting — actual project methodologies (e.g. IPCC, Puro.earth) also account for pyrolysis process emissions and transport, omitted here to isolate the soil-carbon-pool physics.