the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Weathering without inorganic CDR revealed through cation tracing
Abstract. Enhanced Weathering using basalt rock dust is a scalable carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technique, but quantifying rock weathering and CDR rates poses a critical challenge. Here, we investigated inorganic CDR and weathering rates by treating mesocosms planted with corn with basalt (0, 10, 30, 50, 75, 100, 150 and 200 t ha⁻¹) and monitoring them for 101 days. Surprisingly, we observed no significant inorganic CDR, as leaching of dissolved inorganic carbon did not increase, and soil carbonate content even declined over time.
To gain insights into the weathering processes, we analyzed the mass balance of base cations, which can be linked with anions (including HCO3-) through charge balance. This mass balance showed that most base cation charges were retained as (hydr)oxides in the reducible pool of the top soil, while increases in the exchangeable pool were about a factor 10 smaller. Soil base cation scavenging exceeded plant scavenging by approximately two orders of magnitude. From the base cations in all pools (soil, soil water and plants), we quantified log weathering rates of -11 mol TA m-2 basalt s-1 and a maximum CO2 removal potential of the weathered base cations (i.e., CDR potential) of 18 kg CO2 t⁻¹ basalt.
For climate change mitigation, not only the amount of CDR potential is important, but also the timescale at which that CDR would be realized. Our data suggests that the lag time for realization of inorganic CDR may be larger than commonly assumed. In conclusion, we observed that inorganic CDR was not directly linked to rock weathering in the short-term. Still, the observed increases in secondary minerals and base cation exchange may provide valuable benefits for soil fertility and organic matter stabilization in the long-term.
- Preprint
(1265 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2344 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 29 May 2025)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1667', Adam Wolf, 21 Apr 2025
reply
Thank you for reporting the results of this fascinating study. Ordinarily I would reach out directly, but I appreciate the EGU ethos to encourage open discussion over draft papers.
Q. Could you say more about the C-value of the BET results you obtained? 9.2 m2/g is a high value, particularly for a D50 of ~310um. We have been using the C-value as a QA indicator - "good" values were below 100, or perhaps up to 150, whereas bad values are >200. The highest BET value we obtained, 9.6m2/g, had a C value of 1500. We don't believe these high BET values are real.
Q. Could you comment more on the types of secondary minerals that were formed? I am curious the extent to which you believe these are Al-oxides (intrinsic to basalt) or Fe-oxides (more prominent from olivine). Or are these amorphous aluminosilicates?
Q. The soil has low CEC (3), low base sat (50%), and low carbonates (0.003%). Irrigation is with rainwater that is presumably slighly acidic. Why then does the pH in the control plot increase from 5.6 to 7.2?
Comment: The application rates are quite large. Farmers are reluctant to put on more than 10-20 t/ha out of concerns for compaction, but your smallest replicated rate is 50t/ha and you go up to 200 t/ha. I think it is plausible that such high application rates put the system into a regime that is unlikely to be encountered in nature - indeed it jumps from ca 5.5 to ca 6.5 in a month and 7.5 in two months. If the target for a crop is 6.5, then these rates are un-agronomic. The question that arises is: to what extent are your results, specifically around development of secondary minerals, shaped by the high application rates and attendant abrupt shifts in soil chemical equilibria?
Comment: This is the second paper I have read from your group recently that reports results for a relatively short timeframe, with a key takeaway being the retention of the reaction products within the soil column. Our (Eion's) work in the field suggests that there are two regimes: one where ET > Precip due to growing crops, and a subsequent post-harvest phase where Precip > ET and reaction products are flushed out. It appears in this experiment that ~25 L of water was applied and ~15 L of water was collected as leachate, so indeed there is some flushing in the present work. However, I would be curious for the experiment to be run out longer to understand the fate of the secondary minerals that were formed. Do they subsequently dissolve and release these cations as the soil re-acidifies? Are there field trials established contemporaneously in similar soils to address this question?
Comment: You cite Kanzaki et al (2024) four times, but so far as I know this work was not accepted for publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1667-CC1
Data sets
Corn mesocosm experiment 2021 UAntwerpen Arthur Vienne https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15129984
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
121 | 13 | 3 | 137 | 8 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 121
- PDF: 13
- XML: 3
- Total: 137
- Supplement: 8
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1