Next Article in Journal
Effect on Starting Modes on Centrifugal Pump Performance
Next Article in Special Issue
A Review on the Hydrothermal Treatment of Food Waste: Processing and Applications
Previous Article in Journal
Thermal Performance and Energy Conservation Effect of Grain Bin Walls Incorporating PCM in Different Ecological Areas of China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Numerical Study of Leakage and Diffusion of Underwater Oil Spill by Using Volume-of-Fluid (VOF) Technique and Remediation Strategies for Clean-Up
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Microbial-Mediated Emissions of Greenhouse Gas from Farmland Soils: A Review

School of Environment Science and Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
College of Materials Science and Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China
Chongqing Academy of Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chongqing 401147, China
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2022, 10(11), 2361;
Original submission received: 17 October 2022 / Revised: 4 November 2022 / Accepted: 8 November 2022 / Published: 11 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remediation Strategies for Soil and Water)


The greenhouse effect is one of the concerning environmental problems. Farmland soil is an important source of greenhouse gases (GHG), which is characterized by the wide range of ways to produce GHG, multiple influencing factors and complex regulatory measures. Therefore, reducing GHG emissions from farmland soil is a hot topic for relevant researchers. This review systematically expounds on the main pathways of soil CO2, CH4 and N2O; analyzes the effects of soil temperature, moisture, organic matter and pH on various GHG emissions from soil; and focuses on the microbial mechanisms of soil GHG emissions under soil remediation modes, such as biochar addition, organic fertilizer addition, straw return and microalgal biofertilizer application. Finally, the problems and environmental benefits of various soil remediation modes are discussed. This paper points out the important role of microalgae biofertilizer in the GHG emissions reduction in farmland soil, which provides theoretical support for realizing the goal of “carbon peaking and carbon neutrality” in agriculture.

1. Introduction

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) usually refer to gases that can absorb the Earth’s thermal radiation and enhance the greenhouse effect, mainly, carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane; the greenhouse effect is one of the important environmental problems humans have so far faced in the 21st century. CO2 is the single most important anthropogenic GHG in the atmosphere, contributing approximately 66% of the radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases (WMO, 2019). Soil is the largest carbon reservoir in the terrestrial ecosystem [1]; the global carbon storage in 1~3 m of soil is about 1500~2344 Gt C (1 Gt = 1015 g), which is about three times that of the global vegetation and two times that of the atmosphere (IPCC, 2013b). However, the respiration of microorganisms, animals and roots, and the oxidation of carbonaceous matter also produce CO2 [2]. Not only does soil produce CO2, but the consumption of diesel, gasoline and electricity in farmland practices such as farming, irrigation and harvesting also cause CO2 emissions [3]. The annual global emission of CH4 was about 580 million in 2021. CH4 is the second most important GHG after CO2, with an average lifetime of about 8.75 years in the atmosphere and a contribution rate of about 15% of the greenhouse effect. The warming effect of CH4 per unit mass in 20 years is about 84~87 times that of CO2, and its warming effect in 100 years is about 28~36 times that of CO2 [4]. The main emission sources of CH4 in agriculture are rice and livestock cultivation, and the anaerobic environment of flooded rice fields and animal intestine create favorable conditions for CH4 production by methanogens. The main sources of CH4 are natural wetlands, human activities and biomass burning, and tropical regions with high CH4 emissions contribute 80% of global CH4 emissions [5]. N2O is another noteworthy GHG, accounting for about 7.9% of the greenhouse effect. Its average lifetime in the atmosphere is 114 years, and its global warming potential (GWP) is 296~310 times that of CO2, which is the main destroyer of stratospheric ozone [6]. Nitrogen fertilizer application in agriculture is the main source of N2O, and N2O emissions caused by fertilization account for about 30% of global land emissions. Therefore, reducing N2O emissions from farmland soil is urgent to alleviate the greenhouse effect [7,8,9].
At present, researchers have developed some measures and technologies for GHG emission reduction in farmland soil, mainly including adding biochar, returning straw to the field, and applying organic fertilizer or microalgae biofertilizer and soil improvers (such as lime and nitrification inhibitor, etc.) [10,11,12,13,14]. Microbes play a crucial role in the application of these mitigation measures and technologies. However, there are few reviews on the role of microorganisms in GHG emissions from farmland. This review summarizes the sources of CO2, CH4 and N2O in farmland soils, and discusses the environmental impact factors of microorganisms in farmland soil GHG emissions and the GHG emission reduction mechanisms of microorganisms under different soil remediation modes.

2. GHG Production in Agroecosystem

The agroecosystem is an important source of CO2. Agricultural processes generate 15 billion tons of CO2 emission, accounting for 30% of global total emissions [15]. CO2 emission from the soil is usually called “soil respiration”, which is a process of metabolism of animals, roots, fungi and bacteria in the soil. It involves three biological processes (plant root respiration, soil microbial respiration and soil animal respiration) and one non-biological process (chemical oxidation of carbon-containing substances) [2,16]. CO2 in the atmosphere converts into organic matter through the photosynthesis of plants, and then the carbon in the organic matter enters the soil in the form of root exudates, dead roots or fallen leaves. Under the action of soil microorganisms, it is transformed into soil organic matter and stored in the soil, forming soil carbon sink.
The agroecosystem is an important source of CH4 emissions, accounting for 15~30% of the total emissions [17]. In soil with poor aeration, low carbon organic acids, H2, CO2 and other substances formed by the fermentation of other microorganisms generate CH4 under the action of methanogens. CH4 in the agroecosystem can be generated in two ways: (1) organic acids in the soil environment or the degradation products of organic acids, CO2 and H2 generate CH4 under the action of methanogens, or methanogens use formic acid and CO to form CH4; (2) the demethylation of methyl compounds under the action of methanogens to produce CH4. Methane-oxidizing bacteria account for the largest proportion in dryland soil with good aeration. About 82% of CH4 is absorbed and utilized by methane-oxidizing bacteria in the soil before being discharged into the atmosphere, and then entering the soil ecosystem [18,19].
N2O discharged from farmland soil is mainly a by-product of microbial nitrification and denitrification, in which nitrification is divided into autotrophic nitrification and heterotrophic nitrification, and autotrophic nitrification is divided into two stages: (1) ammonia oxidation stage: ammonia-oxidizing archaea (AOA) and bacteria (AOB) first oxidize NH3 to NH2OH and then reduce it to N O 2 ; (2) nitrite oxidation stage: N O 2 is oxidized to N O 3 - by nitrite-oxidizing bacteria. Heterotrophic nitrification is the transformation of organic ammonia nitrogen into N O 2 and N O 3 by nitrifying bacteria and fungi in an aerobic environment [20]. Denitrification is a process in which microorganisms reduce N O 3 and N O 2 to NO, N2O and N2 in the presence of anaerobic environment and various enzymes [21]. When the atmospheric pressure and soil moisture content change, N2O in the atmosphere will enter the soil pores through physical diffusion, and the water and solution in the soil will also dissolve N2O in the atmosphere, thus, introducing N2O into the agroecosystem [22]. The production process of CO2, CH4 and N2O in farmland soil is shown in Figure 1.

3. Environmental Factors Affecting GHG Emissions of Microorganisms in Farmland Soil

3.1. Soil Temperature

A large number of studies have shown that temperature is the main factor affecting the production and emissions of GHG in soil [23,24,25]. Higher soil temperature can enhance the root respiration of crops, accelerate the decomposition of organic matter in the soil, improve the activity of microorganisms in the soil, and thus, accelerate the diffusion of CO2 in soil [26,27]. Methanogens and methane-oxidizing bacteria jointly determine the emission of CH4. Within a certain temperature, the metabolic capacity of methanogens is positively correlated with temperature. When the ambient temperature rises from 20 °C to 35 °C, the emission of CH4 will double. However, recent studies have proposed that methanogens have thermal adaptability, and microbial activity decreases after long-term warming and increases after long-term cooling [28]. Walker et al. explored the response mechanism of soil microorganisms to temperature changes through in situ natural warming experiments, and the results showed that microbial temperature sensitivity and substrate consumption jointly affected soil carbon loss by controlling microbial biomass [29]. In the experiment of soil transplantation on a 3000 m elevation gradient in a tropical forest, every 1 °C increase in temperature resulted in a 4% decrease in soil carbon content. In addition to the decomposition of soil organic matter directly caused by temperature rise, temperature rise affected the physiological function of microorganisms, such as carbon utilization efficiency, microbial community change and the positive feedback effect of related enzyme activity [30]. The production of N2O in soil has biological and abiotic pathways, and high temperature will stimulate microbial activity. Cui et al. conducted a liquid culture of Pseudomonas mandelii at 10~30 °C and found that its denitrification activity is proportional to the temperature [31]. Studies have found that high temperature has a more significant effect on the production of N2O by abiotic pathways, and abiotic denitrification at 50 °C has the strongest effect and the highest N2O emission [32].

3.2. Soil Moisture

Soil moisture affects the emissions of GHG from soils by changing the microbial activity and soil porosity in the soil itself. Soil CO2 emission shows a Birch effect with soil moisture: a certain water content stimulates microbial activity and increases CO2 emission, while too high a water content inhibits soil respiration [33]. Zou et al. studied GHG emissions patterns under different hydrological conditions and found that CO2 equivalent emissions were the lowest when the groundwater level was close to the surface [30]. The utilization rate of O2, the activity of microorganisms and the diffusion ability of gas molecules in soil are all affected by soil water content. Soil with a high water content is prone to form anaerobic areas, which promote the growth of methanogens and denitrification, thus, resulting in an increased emission of CH4 and N2O in soil [34,35]. The Paddy field is the main place where CH4 and N2O are produced, and its irrigation mode significantly affects the GHG emissions of the soil. Intermittent irrigation will inhibit the activity of methanogenic bacteria and reduce CH4 emissions. Flooding irrigation provides an anaerobic environment to promote denitrification, but excessive water delays the diffusion of N2O, resulting in the reduction of N2O to N2 and N2O emission being reduced [36]. According to the above, the International Paddy Field Research Institute put forward the water management mode of dry–wet alternation; the lower redox potential of flooded soil is beneficial to the production of CH4, and the higher redox potential of drained soil is beneficial to the production of N2O [37]. By controlling the time of wet–dry alternation, the redox potential of soil is maintained at a moderately low level, and the lowest emissions of GHG is achieved [38]. Liao et al. found that soil moisture and atmospheric temperature will affect N2O emission by adjusting the balance between nitrifying bacteria and denitrifying bacteria [36]. Soil moisture decreases with the increase in atmospheric temperature, which increases the gene abundance of amoA encoding nitrification to produce N2O in soil, and the decrease in gene abundance of nosZ (Recombinant Nitrous-oxide reductase) encoding N2O reduction to N2, thus, increasing N2O emission [39].

3.3. Soil Organic Matter

Soil organic matter (SOM) generally refers to a type of polymer organic compound with complex components and stable properties formed by organic residues in the soil through microorganisms or other physical and chemical processes [40]. SOM is a major carbon source for soil respiration and significantly affects soil GHG. Soil-activated organic C is a substrate for microbial growth, and its content directly affects the activity of microorganisms, which in turn affects the emission of GHG. Soluble organic matter content in SOM is closely related to CO2 production in soil [41,42], and Paré and Bedard et al. found that alkane carbon and aromatic substances in the arctic tundra ecosystem enhanced CO2 emission [43]. Wang et al. and Pascual et al. found that amines and aromatic compounds in the soil increased significantly after straw returned, resulting in higher CO2 emissions [44,45]. SOM is the main substrate of methanogens, and the SOM content is positively correlated with the CH4 emission [46]. Most denitrifying bacteria are chemoheterotrophic, and their energy for production and reproduction mainly comes from soil organic matter. Therefore, a high organic matter content provides sufficient energy for denitrification and promotes the production of N2O [47]. Other studies have found that microorganisms decompose organic matter and consume oxygen, inhibit soil nitrification and reduce N2O emission [48]. That this is due to the C/N in the soil directly affects the decomposition of SOM and the activity of microorganisms, thereby inhibiting or promoting the emission of N2O from the soil [49].

3.4. Soil pH

The activities of microorganisms and enzymes in soil, the decomposition of organic matter and the development of crop roots are closely related to soil pH. The influence of soil pH on CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions is complex. The optimum pH of most microorganisms in soil is 6–8, and too acidic or too alkaline an environment will inhibit the activity of microorganisms and reduce the emissions of GHG. The optimal pH for the growth and reproduction of methanogens is about 7 [50], and the acidic environment will reduce the emission of soil CH4. N2O reductase is the only enzyme that converts N2O into N2 during denitrification. Acidic soil will inhibit its activity or even cause its inactivation. Studies have found that the emission of N2O in neutral soil is significantly lower than that in acidic soil [51,52]. Therefore, adding alkaline amendments such as CaMg(CO3)2, CaCO3, Ca(OH)2, CaO and other lime materials in acidic soil is beneficial to improve the activity of N2O reductase and reduce the emission of N2O [53]. Shaaban et al. and Wu et al. modified acidic soil with dolomite under different water gradients, and the results showed that soil pH increased rapidly after dolomite application, which promoted the conversion of N2O into N2 and reduced N2O emission [54,55]. Shaaban et al. found that the concentration of N H 4 + -N decreased rapidly with time, while the concentration of N O 3 -N gradually increased after lime material was added to acidic soil, which indicated that nitrification in soil was strengthened [56]. The microorganisms consumed N2O as an electron acceptor instead of N O 3 -N at higher N O 3 -N concentrations. A large amount of N2O is converted into N2 under the action of microorganisms, thereby reducing the emission of N2O [56].

4. Microbial-Mediated Soil Emissions Reduction Mechanism under Different Soil Remediation Modes

4.1. Biochar

Biochar is a loose and porous substance with a high carbon content produced by carbonization organic materials under the condition of little or no oxygen. It has the characteristics of wide source, low cost, large specific surface area, strong adsorption capacity and strong carbon stability. Biochar can improve soil fertility and increase crop yield in agricultural applications. It has reportedly shown great potential in reducing GHG emissions in soils. A large number of experiments have found that fresh biochar cannot reduce CO2 emission in soil [57,58,59,60], while biochar has been naturally aged in field soil, and the organic and inorganic complexes that accumulate on the surface of soil minerals can stabilize the organic carbon in biochar, structurally increasing spatial resistance and reducing CO2 emissions from a physicochemical perspective [61]. In addition, compared with fresh biochar, aged biochar has a richer microbial community structure [62], and some CO2-fixing bacteria appear, which reduces CO2 emission on the microbial level [63].
The reduction in CH4 emission by biochar is due to the joint action of physical chemistry and microorganisms in the soil. The application of biochar increases soil aeration and redox potential, which results in the reduction in CH4 emission by physical–chemical reaction. Methanogens are obligate anaerobic bacteria, which are the main microorganisms producing CH4 in the soil. After entering the soil, biochar with high porosity inhibits the activity of most methanogens and affects the change of microbial community in the soil [64]. Wang et al. monitored the microbial community after biochar application in soil for four consecutive years; the experimental results showed that the abundance of methanogens in the soil after long-term biochar application significantly decreased, while the abundance of methane-oxidizing bacteria did not change significantly, thus, reducing the emission of CH4 in paddy fields [65].
The short-term addition of biochar to rice soil increased the abundance of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) and ammonia monooxygenase gene (amoA), and significantly increased the denitrification rate of the soil. Fresh biochar provided a stronger alkaline environment and nutrients, and even improved the denitrification capacity and nitrogen emission [66]. Many studies have shown that fungi make a greater contribution to N2O production than bacteria in acid soil [67,68]. As the denitrification product of fungi is N2O instead of N2, reducing the number of fungi in soil can reduce N2O emissions. Adding biochar and nitrogen fertilizer to acid soil with high N2O emission will increase the soil pH, change the community composition of fungi, inhibit the denitrification of fungi, significantly reduce the abundance of fungi, increase the abundance of the nosZ gene, enhance the activity of N2O reductase, and promote bacteria to reduce N2O to N2 [69] (Figure 2). nosZ I and nosZ II are N2O reductase coding genes widely existing in the environment. Studies have shown that microbes containing the nosZ II gene have greater N2O reduction potential. Some microbes containing the nosZ II gene lack the nitrite reductase gene, so they do not produce N2O during denitrification, which provides a new research idea for N2O emission reduction in the future.
Although biochar can improve carbon sequestration, achieve emission reduction and adjust the abundance and activity of microorganisms related to GHG emissions in soil, it also has the health risk of releasing heavy metals, organic pollutants, nanoparticles and other substances to inhibit the growth and development of crops. Nanoparticles extracted from six biochars by Zhang et al. were confirmed to inhibit the germination of rice seeds and the growth of reed roots [70]. After biochar enters the soil, soil alkalinity will be enhanced, which will reduce the utilization rate of trace elements such as Fe, Zn and Cu in the soil, interfere with crop growth and even cause plant death [71]. Some studies have found that pollutants in biochar cause serious harm to earthworms [72], and excessive biochar directly reduces their survival rate [73]. Therefore, the application of biochar needs to be considered in combination with the actual soil environment, nature and other factors.

4.2. Organic Fertilizer

Organic fertilizer is the best substitute for chemical fertilizer by using agricultural, animal husbandry and industrial wastes as raw materials to turn waste into treasure. Organic fertilizer can significantly improve soil quality, enrich the microbial community and increase crop yield. However, studies have shown that the introduction of organic fertilizer into the soil will increase the content of light component organic carbon, which is more easily used by microorganisms, and the application of organic fertilizer alone will significantly increase soil CO2 emission [74]. Wang et al. and Li et al. adopted the mode of fertilizer reduction combined with organic fertilizer application and found that soil carbon sequestration significantly increased and GHG emissions significantly decreased in double-cropping rice fields [75,76]. Studies have shown that CH4 effluxes were significantly and negatively related to mcrA and pmoA gene copy numbers, and positively related to mcrA/pmoA. Organic fertilizers provide substrates for methanogens and promote the production and emission of CH4 [77,78]. Li et al. replaced a part of inorganic fertilizer with organic fertilizer in the soil, and five substitution rates including 0, 20%, 50%, 80%, and 100% and a no fertilizer control were evaluated on Chinese cabbage. Cylindrical PVC chambers were placed at the center of each plot on each sampling day at 9 a.m. to collect gas. They found that organic fertilizer could reduce the emission of N2O, and the quality of the vegetables improved under the substitution rate of 20~50% [79]. In summary, the rational use of organic fertilizer can not only regulate C/N in the soil, thereby changing the dominant species of microorganisms in the soil, but also increase crop yield and alleviate the GHG effect. Therefore, significant experimentation and research are needed to find the best case.

4.3. Straw Returning

Straw returning is a comprehensive utilization measure widely adopted around the world, which has the advantages of fertilizing soil capacity, improving cultivated land quality, and increasing soil carbon reservoir and crop yield. As an agricultural renewable resource, straw contains N, P, K, Ca, Mg and other mineral elements needed for crop growth. The main components of straw are abundant organic carbon such as cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, which can improve the soil organic matter content after returning to the field. As shown in Table 1, there are differences in the composition of straw from different crops, which have different effects on GHG emissions in the soil after returning to the field. Zuo et al. studied the effect of returning corn straw pretreated with white rot fungi on soil GHG emissions, and the results showed that the emissions of CO2 and N2O increased significantly due to the increase in C and N content [11]. Recent studies have also suggested that straw return significantly increased the net GWP compared to non-straw return [80], which is consistent with the results of Wu et al., who reported that straw return increased GHG. Research on straw returning significantly increasing CH4 emissions has been widely reported [81]. Wang et al. found that straw returning significantly increased CH4 emissions by using the method of meta-analysis, and the comprehensive temperature potential of GHG significantly increased by 87.1% [82]. The impact of straw returning on N2O is still uncertain. Li et al. and Liu et al. believed that straw returning increased the content of C in the soil, enhanced the denitrification of microorganisms in the soil, and promoted the emission of N2O [83,84]. Xu et al. studied the impact of nitrogen fertilizer and straw on N2O emission from winter wheat farmland. Four treatments, i.e., no N fertilizer and no straw, straw incorporation only, N fertilizer only, and N fertilization plus straw incorporation, were established in the experiment. They found that straw incorporation increased the N content in the soil but had no significant impact on N2O emission [85]. Chen et al. used 15N tracing technology to study the mechanism of N2O increase after straw return [86]. They found that the C/N ratio of straw application was negatively related to soil denitrification, and increasing the C/N ratio of straw application could weaken the N2O emission during denitrification. Straw returning significantly affects the soil microbial community structure, and the dominant bacteria in the straw degradation process will also change over time. In order to reduce GHG emissions, the strategy of straw incorporation should be adjusted. There is a research gap in the impact of straw return on GHG, which still needs to be studied by relevant professionals.

4.4. Microalgae Biofertilizer

Microalgae are widely distributed unicellular or simple multicellular microorganisms in land, lake and sea. Microalgae can efficiently carry out photosynthesis and be used for energy production, wastewater treatment and CO2 reduction. Microalgae biofertilizer is mainly composed of eukaryotic green algae with high photosynthetic efficiency and prokaryotic cyanobacteria with fixed nitrogen. Microalgae biofertilizer is rich in trace elements and has the advantages of high efficiency, environmental protection, carbon fixation and nitrogen fixation to reduce GHG emissions [94]. The beneficial effects of microalgae on soil and GHG are shown in Figure 3. The photosynthetic efficiency of microalgae is 10~50 times that of ordinary terrestrial plants. Microalgae can fix CO2 from the atmosphere and increase O2 content in the soil by absorbing CO2 in the environment and releasing O2 at the same time [95]. Microalgae in the soil can activate solidified phosphorus and potassium in soil under the action of biological enzymes, improve the activity of cationic mineral elements in soil, and promote the accumulation and transformation of photosynthetic products. The extracellular polysaccharides secreted by microorganisms and microalgae on the soil surface will form a layer of algal biofilm, which can increase the carbon and nitrogen sources in the soil by sequestering CO2 and N2 in the atmosphere [96]. Marks et al. added the suspension of chlorella culture to farmland soil, accelerating the formation of soil photosynthetic biofilm [97].
Cyanobacteria have both carbon and nitrogen-fixation functions. CO2 in the atmosphere is fixed through photosynthesis, similar to green algae. The cyanobacteria are divided into vegetative and highly differentiated heterocyst cells. Heteroplasts have a unique nitrogenase, which can reduce N2 to NH3. Nitrate reductase and nitrite reductase in vegetative cells convert nitrate and nitrite in the environment to NH3 through nitrification and denitrification, increasing soil nitrogen reserves [98]. Nitrogen-containing substances such as amino acids, sugars, polysaccharides and a small number of hormones secreted by cyanobacteria during their growth and reproduction further increase the content of effective nitrogen in the soil [99,100]. Ali et al. showed that the CH4 emission flux of Bangladeshi rice soil treated with azolla and cyanobacteria was low in two consecutive rice experiments, 12% lower than that of the control [101]. Prasanna et al. conducted experiments in paddy fields in New Delhi, India, and found that the CH4 emission of rice soil inoculated with two kinds of Anabaena biofilm (Anabaena—Trichoderma, and Anabaena—Pseudomonas aeruginosa) was 50~80% lower than that of rice fields under the traditional mode [102]. Shrestha et al. found that, compared with urea, microalgae biofertilizer did not significantly increase wheat yield, but reduced nitrogen oxide (N2O and NO) emissions in soil [103]. Zhang et al. and Hu et al. tried to combine microalgae biofertilizer with biochar or organic fertilizer and found that the carbon sequestration ability of microalgae was significantly improved [104,105]. The reason for this is that the addition of biochar and organic fertilizer increases the intracellular glucose content of microalgae, and microorganisms are more likely to obtain extracellular glucose; thus, a large amount of intracellular glucose becomes a part of soil carbon sink, strengthening the carbon sequestration ability of microalgae. It has been reported that microalgal biofertilizer can not only sequester carbon, fix nitrogen and reduce GHG emissions, but the dead algal cells can be converted into organic matter and improve soil fertility and plant yield [106]. Microalgae carbon fixation is also widely used in the treatment of coal-fired flue gas in factories. Microalgae fix CO2 in coal-fired flue gas through photosynthesis, and absorb NOx and SOx in flue gas as nitrogen and sulfur sources for their own growth and reproduction [107,108]. Microalgae, the product of industrial carbon fixation, happens to be an important source of microalgae biofertilizer, which will become an effective medium for industrial and agricultural carbon emissions reduction. Under the background of global green production, microalgae have broad application prospects and are important resources for future development.

5. Conclusions and Prospects

There are many factors affecting GHG emissions from farmland soils. Soil temperature, soil moisture, soil organic matter content and soil pH, as well as other soil physical and chemical properties change soil GHG emissions by affecting the activities of soil microorganisms and related enzymes. At present, the feasible technologies to control soil GHG emissions include biochar application, organic fertilizer application, straw return and microalgae biofertilizer application. However, there are heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other organic pollutants in biochar, which may inhibit crop growth, reduce crop yield and affect the growth and reproduction of soil animals after application; the organic fertilizer application and straw return require high operation and technology, so the emission reduction effect in actual application is not stable.
Here, we emphasize a remediation mode of “microalgae biofertilizer” with future development prospects. Microalgae biofertilizer satisfies people’s demands for healthy soil; it achieves environmental protection, and agricultural quality and efficiency improvement through multiple functions such as carbon fixation and nitrogen fixation, crop growth promotion and soil improvement. However, there are few reports on the response mechanism of microorganisms in soil after applying microalgae biofertilizer. Therefore, it is significant to explore the underlying mechanism through the GHG emissions of soil after applying microalgae biofertilizer and the metagenome sequencing technology, which will provide important theoretical support for the development of microalgae biofertilizer.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.W., R.Z. and H.D.; methodology, H.W. and D.Z.; software, H.W. and R.Z.; validation, H.W. and R.Z.; formal analysis, H.W. and D.Z.; investigation, H.W.; resources, H.W.; data curation, H.W. and R.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, H.W. and R.Z.; writing—review and editing, H.W. and R.Z.; visualization, H.W. and D.Z.; supervision, S.L., J.F., Y.Z., N.D., D.S. and H.D.; project administration, H.D.; funding acquisition, H.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was funded by the Scientific Research Project of Chongqing Ecological Environment Bureau (No. CQEE2022-STHBZZ118) and the Key Research and Development Plan of Tianjin (NO. 21YFSNSN00170).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Hao, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, X.; Wu, J.; Jiang, S.; Xiao, J.; Wang, K.; Zhou, X.; Liu, H.; Li, J.; et al. Thresholds in aridity and soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratio govern the accumulation of soil microbial residues. Commun. Earth Environ. 2021, 2, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Oertel, C.; Matschullat, J.; Zurba, K.; Zimmermann, F.; Erasmi, S. Greenhouse gas emissions from soils A review. Geochemistry 2016, 76, 327–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  3. Deng, C.X.; Li, R.R.; Xie, B.G.; Wan, Y.L.; Li, Z.W.; Liu, C.C. Impacts of the integrated pattern of water and land resources use on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in China during 2006–2017: A water-land-energy-emissions nexus analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 308, 127221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ji, D.H.; Zhou, M.Q.; Wang, P.C.; Yang, Y.; Wang, T.; Sun, X.Y.; Hermans, C.; Yao, B.; Wang, G.C. Deriving Temporal and Vertical Distributions of Methane in Xianghe Using Ground-based Fourier Transform Infrared and Gas-analyzer Measurements. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 2020, 37, 597–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tian, H.; Chen, G.; Lu, C.; Xu, X.; Ren, W.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, B.; Banger, K.; Tao, B.; Pan, S.; et al. Global methane and nitrous oxide emissions from terrestrial ecosystems due to multiple environmental changes. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2015, 1, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  6. Thompson, R.L.; Lassaletta, L.; Patra, P.K.; Wilson, C.; Wells, K.C.; Gressent, A.; Koffi, E.N.; Chipperfield, M.P.; Winiwarter, W.; Davidson, E.A.; et al. Acceleration of global N2O emissions seen from two decades of atmospheric inversion. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 993–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cui, X.Q.; Zhou, F.; Ciais, P.; Davidson, E.A.; Tubiello, F.N.; Niu, X.Y.; Ju, X.T.; Canadell, J.G.; Bouwman, A.F.; Jackson, R.B.; et al. Global mapping of crop-specific emission factors highlights hotspots of nitrous oxide mitigation. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 886–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tian, H.Q.; Xu, R.T.; Canadell, J.G.; Thompson, R.L.; Winiwarter, W.; Suntharalingam, P.; Davidson, E.A.; Ciais, P.; Jackson, R.B.; Janssens-Maenhout, G.; et al. A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks. Nature 2020, 586, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Syakila, A.; Kroeze, C. The global nitrous oxide budget revisited. Greenh. Gas. Meas. Manag. 2011, 1, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, B.; Zhou, M.; Lin, H.; Ntacyabukura, T.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, B. Effects of different long-term crop straw management practices on ammonia volatilization from subtropical calcareous agricultural soil. Atmos. Ocean. Sci. Lett. 2020, 13, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zuo, S.S.; Wu, D.; Du, Z.L.; Xu, C.C.; Wu, W.L. Effects of white-rot fungal pretreatment of corn straw return on greenhouse gas emissions from the North China Plain soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 807, 150837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sun, J.; Haiyun, P.; Jianmin, C.; Xinming, W.; Min, W.; Weijun, L.; Lingxiao, Y.; Qingzhu, Z.; Wenxing, W.; Abdelwahid, M. An estimation of CO2 emission via agricultural crop residue open field burning in China from 1996 to 2013. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2625–2631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chen, H.H.; Li, X.C.; Hu, F.; Shi, W. Soil nitrous oxide emissions following crop residue addition: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 2956–2964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sun, D.Y.; Tang, X.F.; Li, J.; Liu, M.; Hou, L.J.; Yin, G.Y.; Chen, C.; Zhao, Q.; Klumper, U.; Han, P. Chlorate as a comammox Nitrospira specific inhibitor reveals nitrification and N2O production activity in coastal wetland. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2022, 173, 108782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Terrer, C.; Phillips, R.P.; Hungate, B.A.; Rosende, J.; Pett, R.J.; Craig, M.E.; van Groenigen, K.J.; Keenan, T.F.; Sulman, B.N.; Stocker, B.D.; et al. A trade-off between plant and soil carbon storage under elevated CO2. Nature 2021, 591, 599–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zheng, X.; Moses, A.A.; Hui, W.; Peng, H.; Shan, L.; Na, C.; Songyuan, W.; Hongling, Z.; Hui, D.; Kebin, L. Effect of lignin and plant growth-promoting bacteria (Staphylococcus pasteuri) on microbe-plant Co-remediation: A PAHs-DDTs Co-contaminated agricultural greenhouse study. Chemosphere 2020, 256, 127079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Saunois, M.; Stavert, A.R.; Poulter, B.; Bousquet, P.; Canadell, J.G.; Jackson, R.B.; Raymond, P.A.; Dlugokencky, E.J.; Houweling, S.; Patra, P.K.; et al. The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2020, 12, 1561–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Malyan, S.K.; Bhatia, A.; Kumar, A.; Gupta, D.K.; Singh, R.; Kumar, S.S.; Tomer, R.; Kumar, O.; Jain, N. Methane production, oxidation and mitigation: A mechanistic understanding and comprehensive evaluation of influencing factors. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 572, 874–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mitra, S.; Majumdar, D.; Wassmann, R. Methane production and emission in surface and subsurface rice soils and their blends. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 158, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhong, L.; Bowatte, S.; Newton, P.C.D.; Hoogendoorn, C.J.; Luo, D. An increased ratio of fungi to bacteria indicates greater potential for N2O production in a grazed grassland exposed to elevated CO2. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 254, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, C.; Amon, B.; Schulz, K.; Mehdi, B. Factors That Influence Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Agricultural Soils as Well as Their Representation in Simulation Models: A Review. Agronomy 2021, 11, 770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Muhammad, Z.M.; Edouard, M.; Alain, R.; Martial, B.; Alain, B. Xylophagous termites: A potential sink for atmospheric nitrous oxide. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2012, 53, 121–125. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lu, S.B.; Xu, Y.; Fu, X.P.; Xiao, H.; Ding, W.; Zhang, Y.J. Patterns and Drivers of Soil Respiration and Vegetation at Different Altitudes in Southern China. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17, 3097–3106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kellman, L.; Myette, A.; Beltrami, H. Depth-Dependent Mineral Soil CO2 Production Processes: Sensitivity to Harvesting-Induced Changes in Soil Climate. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0134171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, Q.K.; Zhao, X.C.; Chen, L.C.; Yang, Q.P.; Chen, S.; Zhang, W.D. Global synthesis of temperature sensitivity of soil organic carbon decomposition: Latitudinal patterns and mechanisms. Funct. Ecol. 2019, 33, 514–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Carey, J.C.; Tang, J.W.; Templer, P.H.; Kroeger, K.D.; Crowther, T.W.; Burton, A.J.; Dukes, J.S.; Emmett, B.; Frey, S.D.; Heskel, M.A.; et al. Temperature response of soil respiration largely unaltered with experimental warming. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 13797–13802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  27. Voigt, C.; Lamprecht, R.E.; Marushchak, M.E.; Lind, S.E.; Novakovskiy, A.; Aurela, M.; Martikainen, P.J.; Biasi, C. Warming of subarctic tundra increases emissions of all three important greenhouse gases-carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 3121–3138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chen, H.; Zhu, T.; Li, B.; Fang, C.; Nie, M. The thermal response of soil microbial methanogenesis decreases in magnitude with changing temperature. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 5733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Walker, T.W.N.; Kaiser, C.; Strasser, F.; Herbold, C.W.; Leblans, N.I.W.; Woebken, D.; Janssens, I.A.; Sigurdsson, B.D.; Richter, A. Microbial temperature sensitivity and biomass change explain soil carbon loss with warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 885–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nottingham, A.T.; Whitaker, J.; Ostle, N.J.; Bardgett, R.D.; McNamara, N.P.; Fierer, N.; Salinas, N.; Ccahuana, A.J.Q.; Turner, B.L.; Meir, P. Microbial responses to warming enhance soil carbon loss following translocation across a tropical forest elevation gradient. Ecol. Lett. 2019, 22, 1889–1899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cui, P.Y.; Fan, F.L.; Yin, C.; Song, A.L.; Huang, P.R.; Tang, Y.J.; Zhu, P.; Peng, C.; Li, T.Q.; Wakelin, S.A.; et al. Long-term organic and inorganic fertilization alters temperature sensitivity of potential N2O emissions and associated microbes. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 93, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jannis, H.; Shurong, L.; Harry, V.; Nicolas, B. Abiotic nitrous oxide production from hydroxylamine in soils and their dependence on soil properties. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 84, 107–115. [Google Scholar]
  33. Li, J.; Junmin, P.; Elise, P.; Changming, F.; Ming, N. Spatial heterogeneity of temperature sensitivity of soil respiration: A global analysis of field observations. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2020, 141, 107675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hu, H.; Chen, D.; He, J.-Z. Microbial regulation of terrestrial nitrous oxide formation: Understanding the biological pathways for prediction of emission rates. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2015, 39, 729–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hu, H.; Xu, Z.; He, J. Ammonia-Oxidizing Archaea Play a Predominant Role in Acid Soil Nitrification. Adv. Agron. 2014, 125, 261–302. [Google Scholar]
  36. Liao, B.; Wu, X.; Yu, Y.F.; Luo, S.Y.; Hu, R.G.; Lu, G.A. Effects of mild alternate wetting and drying irrigation and mid-season drainage on CH4 and N2O emissions in rice cultivation. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 698, 134212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Liang, K.; Zhong, X.; Huang, N.; Lampayan, R.M.; Liu, Y.; Pan, J.; Peng, B.; Hu, X.; Fu, Y. Nitrogen losses and greenhouse gas emissions under different N and water management in a subtropical double-season rice cropping system. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 609, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tirol-Padre, A.; Minamikawa, K.; Tokida, T.; Wassmann, R.; Yagi, K. Site-specific feasibility of alternate wetting and drying as a greenhouse gas mitigation option in irrigated rice fields in Southeast Asia: A synthesis. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2018, 64, 2–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Humphrey, V.; Berg, A.; Ciais, P.; Gentine, P.; Jung, M.; Reichstein, M.; Seneviratne, S.I.; Frankenberg, C. Soil moisture-atmosphere feedback dominates land carbon uptake variability. Nature 2021, 592, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sylvie, D.; Katell, Q. Analytical pyrolysis as a tool to probe soil organic matter. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2015, 111, 108–120. [Google Scholar]
  41. Li, Y.; Dong, S.; Liu, S.; Zhou, H.; Gao, Q.; Cao, G.; Wang, X.; Su, X.; Zhang, Y.; Tang, L.; et al. Seasonal changes of CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes in different types of alpine grassland in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau of China. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 80, 306–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chen, H.; Yang, Z.; Chu, R.K.; Tolic, N.; Liang, L.; Graham, D.E.; Wullschleger, S.D.; Gu, B. Molecular Insights into Arctic Soil Organic Matter Degradation under Warming. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 4555–4564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  43. Paré, M.C.; Bedard-Haughn, A. Soil organic matter quality influences mineralization and GHG emissions in cryosols: A field-based study of sub- to high Arctic. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 1126–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wang, H.H.; Shen, M.X.; Hui, D.F.; Chen, J.; Sun, G.F.; Wang, X.; Lu, C.Y.; Sheng, J.; Chen, L.G.; Luo, Y.Q.; et al. 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. 2019, 195, 104377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pascual, J.; Wust, P.K.; Geppert, A.; Foesel, B.U.; Huber, K.J.; Overmann, J. Novel isolates double the number of chemotrophic species and allow the first description of higher taxa in Acidobacteria subdivision 4. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2015, 38, 534–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Xu, P.; Zhou, W.; Jiang, M.D.; Khan, I.; Wu, T.T.; Zhou, M.H.; Zhu, B.; Hu, R.G. Methane emission from rice cultivation regulated by soil hydrothermal condition and available carbon and nitrogen under a rice-wheat rotation system. Plant Soil 2022, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wu, Y.P.; Liu, T.; Peng, Q.; Shaaban, M.; Hu, R.G. Effect of straw returning in winter fallow in Chinese rice fields on greenhouse gas emissions: Evidence from an incubation study. Soil Res. 2015, 53, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cui, Y.; Meng, J.; Wang, Q.; Weiming, Z.; Weiming, Z.; Wenfu, C. Effects of straw and biochar addition on soil nitrogen, carbon, and super rice yield in cold waterlogged paddy soils of North China. J. Integr. Agric. 2017, 16, 1064–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhao, S.X.; Schmidt, S.; Qin, W.; Li, J.; Li, G.X.; Zhang, W.F. Towards the circular nitrogen economy—A global meta-analysis of composting technologies reveals much potential for mitigating nitrogen losses. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 704, 135401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Awais, S.; Saba, S.; Abdul, R.; Fatima, A.; Muhammad, A.; Sher, M.S.; Taimoor, H.F.; Muhammad, A.; Muhammad, A.M.; Muhammad, M.A.; et al. Effect of animal manure, crop type, climate zone, and soil attributes on greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural soils-A global meta-analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 124019. [Google Scholar]
  51. Qu, Z.; Wang, J.; Almoy, T.; Bakken, L.R. Excessive use of nitrogen in Chinese agriculture results in high N2O/(N2O+N2) product ratio of denitrification, primarily due to acidification of the soils. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 1685–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  52. Shaaban, M.; Wu, Y.P.; Peng, Q.A.; Lin, S.; Mo, Y.L.; Wu, L.; Hu, R.G.; Zhou, W. Effects of dicyandiamide and dolomite application on N2O emission from an acidic soil. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 6334–6342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Galbally, I.E.; Meyer, C.P.; Wang, Y.P.; Smith, C.J.; Weeks, I.A. Nitrous oxide emissions from a legume pasture and the influences of liming and urine addition. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 136, 262–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Shaaban, M.; Peng, Q.-A.; Hu, R.; Wu, Y.; Lin, S.; Zhao, J. Dolomite application to acidic soils: A promising option for mitigating N2O emissions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 19961–19970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wu, H.; Hao, X.; Xu, P.; Hu, J.; Jiang, M.; Shaaban, M.; Zhao, J.; Wu, Y.; Hu, R. CO2 and N2O emissions in response to dolomite application are moisture dependent in an acidic paddy soil. J. Soils Sediments 2020, 20, 3136–3147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Shaaban, M.; Wu, Y.P.; Wu, L.; Hu, R.G.; Younas, A.; Nunez-Delgado, A.; Xu, P.; Sun, Z.; Lin, S.; Xu, X.Y.; et al. The Effects of pH Change through Liming on Soil N2O Emissions. Processes 2020, 8, 702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yang, Y.; Sun, K.; Liu, J.; Chen, Y.L.; Han, L.F. Changes in soil properties and CO2 emissions after biochar addition: Role of pyrolysis temperature and aging. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 839, 156333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gasco, G.; Paz-Ferreiro, J.; Cely, P.; Plaza, C.; Mendez, A. Influence of pig manure and its biochar on soil CO2 emissions and soil enzymes. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 95, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Benavente, I.; Gasco, G.; Plaza, C.; Paz-Ferreiro, J.; Mendez, A. Choice of pyrolysis parameters for urban wastes affects soil enzymes and plant germination in a Mediterranean soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 634, 1308–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yu, Z.; Chen, L.; Pan, S.; Li, Y.; Kuzyakov, Y.; Xu, J.; Brookes, P.C.; Luo, Y. Feedstock determines biochar-induced soil priming effects by stimulating the activity of specific microorganisms. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 69, 521–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yang, F.; Xu, Z.B.; Huang, Y.D.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Ok, Y.S.; Zhao, L.; Qiu, H.; Xu, X.Y.; Cao, X.D. Stabilization of dissolvable biochar by soil minerals: Release reduction and organo-mineral complexes formation. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 412, 125213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Yu, M.J.; Su, W.Q.; Parikh, S.J.; Li, Y.; Tang, C.X.; Xu, J.M. Intact and washed biochar caused different patterns of nitrogen transformation and distribution in a flooded paddy soil. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wang, L.; Gao, C.C.; Yang, K.; Sheng, Y.Q.; Xu, J.; Zhao, Y.X.; Lou, J.; Sun, R.; Zhu, L.Z. Effects of biochar aging in the soil on its mechanical property and performance for soil CO2 and N2O emissions. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 782, 146824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Chen, D.; Wang, C.; Shen, J.L.; Li, Y.; Wu, J.S. Response of CH4 emissions to straw and biochar applications in double-rice cropping systems: Insights from observations and modeling. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 235, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Wang, C.; Shen, J.L.; Liu, J.Y.; Qin, H.L.; Yuan, Q.; Fan, F.L.; Hu, Y.J.; Wang, J.; Wei, W.X.; Li, Y.; et al. Microbial mechanisms in the reduction of CH4 emission from double rice cropping system amended by biochar: A four-year study. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2019, 135, 251–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. He, L.L.; Shan, J.; Zhao, X.; Wang, S.Q.; Yan, X.Y. Variable responses of nitrification and denitrification in a paddy soil to long-term biochar amendment and short-term biochar addition. Chemosphere 2019, 234, 558–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Lourenco, K.S.; Dimitrov, M.R.; Pijl, A.; Soares, J.R.; Do Carmo, J.B.; van Veen, J.A.; Cantarella, H.; Kuramae, E.E. Dominance of bacterial ammonium oxidizers and fungal denitrifiers in the complex nitrogen cycle pathways related to nitrous oxide emission. GCB Bioenergy 2018, 10, 645–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  68. Mothapo, N.V.; Chen, H.H.; Cubeta, M.A.; Shi, W. Nitrous oxide producing activity of diverse fungi from distinct agroecosystems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 66, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ji, C.; Han, Z.Q.; Zheng, F.W.; Wu, S.; Wang, J.Y.; Wang, J.D.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, Y.C.; Liu, S.W.; Li, S.Q.; et al. Biochar reduced soil nitrous oxide emissions through suppressing fungal denitrification and affecting fungal community assembly in a subtropical tea plantation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 326, 107784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhang, K.; Wang, Y.; Mao, J.; Chen, B. Effects of biochar nanoparticles on seed germination and seedling growth. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 256, 113409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Jan, M.; Josephine, G.; Munoo, P.; Ulf, L.; Juergen, K.; Ondrej, M.; Wolfram, B. Toxicity screening of biochar-mineral composites using germination tests. Chemosphere 2018, 207, 91–100. [Google Scholar]
  72. Huang, C.; Weiyue, W.; Shizhong, Y.; Muhammad, A.; Yuhui, Q. Role of biochar and Eisenia fetida on metal bioavailability and biochar effects on earthworm fitness. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 263, 114586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Malev, O.; Contin, M.; Licen, S.; Barbieri, P.; De Nobili, M. Bioaccumulation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and survival of earthworms (Eisenia andrei) exposed to biochar amended soils. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 3491–3502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  74. Li, L.J.; You, M.Y.; Shi, H.A.; Ding, X.L.; Qiao, Y.F.; Han, X.Z. Soil CO2 emissions from a cultivated Mollisol: Effects of organic amendments, soil temperature, and moisture. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2013, 55, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wang, C.; Ma, X.F.; Shen, J.L.; Chen, D.; Zheng, L.; Ge, T.D.; Li, Y.; Wu, J.S. Reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions through a combination of pig manure and reduced inorganic fertilizer application in a double-rice cropping system: Three-year results. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 326, 107799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Li, B.Z.; Song, H.; Cao, W.C.; Wang, Y.J.; Chen, J.S.; Guo, J.H. Responses of soil organic carbon stock to animal manure application: A new global synthesis integrating the impacts of agricultural managements and environmental conditions. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2021, 27, 5356–5367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Tian, H.Q.; Lu, C.Q.; Ciais, P.; Michalak, A.M.; Canadell, J.G.; Saikawa, E.; Huntzinger, D.N.; Gurney, K.R.; Sitch, S.; Zhang, B.W.; et al. The terrestrial biosphere as a net source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Nature 2016, 531, 225–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  78. Yuan, J.; Yuan, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Cao, L. Effects of different fertilizers on methane emissions and methanogenic community structures in paddy rhizosphere soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 627, 770–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Li, Y.J.; Zheng, Q.; Yang, R.; Zhuang, S.; Lin, W.; Li, Y.Z. Evaluating microbial role in reducing N2O emission by dual isotopocule mapping following substitution of inorganic fertilizer for organic fertilizer. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 326, 129442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Guo, L.J.; Zhang, L.; Liu, L.; Sheng, F.; Cao, C.G.; Li, C.F. Effects of long-term no tillage and straw return on greenhouse gas emissions and crop yields from a rice-wheat system in central China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 322, 107650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wu, X.H.; Wang, W.; Xie, K.J.; Yin, C.M.; Hou, H.J.; Xie, X.L. Combined effects of straw and water management on CH4 emissions from rice fields. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 1257–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Wang, X.D.; He, C.; Cheng, H.Y.; Liu, B.Y.; Li, S.S.; Wang, Q.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, H.L. Responses of greenhouse gas emissions to residue returning in China’s croplands and influential factors: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 289, 112486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Li, H.; Dai, M.W.; Dai, S.L.; Dong, X.J. Current status and environment impact of direct straw return in China’s cropland—A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 159, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Liu, C.Y.; Wang, K.; Meng, S.X.; Zheng, X.H.; Zhou, Z.X.; Han, S.H.; Chen, D.L.; Yang, Z.P. Effects of irrigation, fertilization and crop straw management on nitrous oxide and nitric oxide emissions from a wheat-maize rotation field in northern China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 140, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Xu, C.; Han, X.; Ru, S.H.; Cardenas, L.; Rees, R.M.; Wu, D.; Wu, W.L.; Meng, F.Q. Crop straw incorporation interacts with N fertilizer on N2O emissions in an intensively cropped farmland. Geoderma 2019, 341, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chen, Z.X.; Tu, X.S.; Meng, H.; Chen, C.; Chen, Y.J.; Elrys, A.S.; Cheng, Y.; Zhang, J.B.; Cai, Z.C. Microbial process-oriented understanding of stimulation of soil N2O emission following the input of organic materials. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 284, 117176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zhang, Z.S.; Guo, L.J.; Liu, T.Q.; Li, C.F.; Cao, C.G. Effects of tillage practices and straw returning methods on greenhouse gas emissions and net ecosystem economic budget in rice wheat cropping systems in central China. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 122, 636–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zhu, H.J.; Tao, J.; Yan, X.M.; Zhou, B.J.; Mwangi, J.K. Short-Term Effects of Straw Application on Carbon Recycle in a Rice-Rapeseed Rotation System. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2016, 16, 3358–3363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  89. Jiang, C.M.; Yu, W.T.; Ma, Q.; Xu, Y.G.; Zou, H. Alleviating global warming potential by soil carbon sequestration: A multi-level straw incorporation experiment from a maize cropping system in Northeast China. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 170, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Liang, S.; Zhang, H. Different Responses of Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Straw Application at Different Seasons in Northeast China. Sains Malays. 2019, 48, 1347–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhang, H.; Liang, S.; Wang, Y.H.; Liu, S.W.; Sun, H.D. Greenhouse gas emissions of rice straw return varies with return depth and soil type in paddy systems of Northeast China. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2021, 67, 1591–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Li, S.H.; Guo, L.J.; Cao, C.G.; Li, C.F. Effects of straw returning levels on carbon footprint and net ecosystem economic benefits from rice-wheat rotation in central China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 5742–5754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Wu, G.; Ling, J.; Xu, Y.P.; Zhao, D.Q.; Liu, Z.X.; Wen, Y.; Zhou, S.L. Effects of soil warming and straw return on soil organic matter and greenhouse gas fluxes in winter wheat seasons in the North China Plain. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 356, 131810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Alvarez, A.L.; Weyers, S.L.; Goemann, H.M.; Peyton, B.M.; Gardner, R.D. Microalgae, soil and plants: A critical review of microalgae as renewable resources for agriculture. Algal Res. 2021, 54, 102200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. de Siqueira, C.J.; Lucia, C.M.; Peixoto, A.P.; Roberto, C.P.; Rodrigues, D.A.I.; Jose, R.V. Microalgae biofilm in soil: Greenhouse gas emissions, ammonia volatilization and plant growth. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 574, 1640–1648. [Google Scholar]
  96. Bharti, A.; Velmourougane, K.; Prasanna, R. Phototrophic biofilms: Diversity, ecology and applications. J. Appl. Phycol. 2017, 29, 2729–2744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Marks, E.A.N.; Minon, J.; Pascual, A.; Montero, O.; Navas, L.M.; Rad, C. Application of a microalgal slurry to soil stimulates heterotrophic activity and promotes bacterial growth. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 605, 610–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Knoche, K.L.; Aoyama, E.; Hasan, K.; Minteer, S.D. Role of Nitrogenase and Ferredoxin in the Mechanism of Bioelectrocatalytic Nitrogen Fixation by the Cyanobacteria Anabaena variabilis SA-1 Mutant Immobilized on Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) Electrodes. Electrochim. Acta 2017, 232, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Mallappa, M.; Amrita, K.; Kunal, R.; Siddarthan, V.; Radha, P.; Balasubramanian, R.; Firoz, H.; Lata, N.; Yashbir, S.S.; Awadhesh, B.R.; et al. Beneficial cyanobacteria and eubacteria synergistically enhance bioavailability of soil nutrients and yield of okra. Heliyon 2016, 2, e00066. [Google Scholar]
  100. Renuka, N.; Prasanna, R.; Sood, A.; Ahluwalia, A.S.; Bansal, R.; Babu, S.; Singh, R.; Shivay, Y.S.; Nain, L. Exploring the efficacy of wastewater-grown microalgal biomass as a biofertilizer for wheat. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 6608–6620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ali, M.A.; Sattar, M.A.; Islam, M.N.; Inubushi, K. Integrated effects of organic, inorganic and biological amendments on methane emission, soil quality and rice productivity in irrigated paddy ecosystem of Bangladesh: Field study of two consecutive rice growing seasons. Plant Soil 2014, 378, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Prasanna, R.; Adak, A.; Verma, S.; Bidyarani, N.; Babu, S.; Pal, M.; Shivay, Y.S.; Nain, L. Cyanobacterial inoculation in rice grown under flooded and SRI modes of cultivation elicits differential effects on plant growth and nutrient dynamics. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 84, 532–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Shrestha, R.C.; Ghazaryan, L.; Poodiack, B.; Zorin, B.; Gross, A.; Gillor, O.; Khozin-Goldberg, I.; Gelfand, I. The effects of microalgae-based fertilization of wheat on yield, soil microbiome and nitrogen oxides emissions. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 151320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Zhang, S.P.; Wang, L.; Wei, W.; Hu, J.J.; Mei, S.H.; Zhao, Q.Y.; Tsang, Y.F. Enhanced roles of biochar and organic fertilizer in microalgae for soil carbon sink. Biodegradation 2018, 29, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Hu, J.J.; Guo, H.C.; Xue, Y.Y.; Gao, M.T.; Zhang, S.P.; Tsang, Y.F.; Li, J.X.; Wang, Y.N.; Wang, L. Using a mixture of microalgae, biochar, and organic manure to increase the capacity of soil to act as carbon sink. J. Soils Sediments 2019, 19, 3718–3727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Bhardwaj, D.; Ansari, M.W.; Sahoo, R.K.; Tuteja, N. Biofertilizers function as key player in sustainable agriculture by improving soil fertility, plant tolerance and crop productivity. Microb. Cell Fact. 2014, 13, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  107. Yen, H.W.; Ho, S.H.; Chen, C.Y.; Chang, J.S. CO2, NOx and SOx removal from flue gas via microalgae cultivation: A critical review. Biotechnol. J. 2015, 10, 829–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Zeraatkar, A.K.; Ahmadzadeh, H.; Talebi, A.F.; Moheimani, N.R.; McHenry, M.P. Potential use of algae for heavy metal bioremediation, a critical review. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 181, 817–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The production process of CO2, CH4 and N2O in farmland soil.
Figure 1. The production process of CO2, CH4 and N2O in farmland soil.
Processes 10 02361 g001
Figure 2. Potential mechanism of N2O emission reduction following biochar amendment from acidic soils.
Figure 2. Potential mechanism of N2O emission reduction following biochar amendment from acidic soils.
Processes 10 02361 g002
Figure 3. Beneficial effects of microalgae on soil and GHG emissions.
Figure 3. Beneficial effects of microalgae on soil and GHG emissions.
Processes 10 02361 g003
Table 1. The emission data of the GHGs from straw addition.
Table 1. The emission data of the GHGs from straw addition.
Soil TypeStraw TypeGHGCompared with No Straw AdditionYearRef.
Maize-crop Maize strawN2O−11.0~27.0%2017[89]
Rice paddyRice strawCH4+39.1%2017[48]
Rice paddyRice strawCO2+14.8~27.5%2019[90]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, H.; Zhao, R.; Zhao, D.; Liu, S.; Fu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Dai, N.; Song, D.; Ding, H. Microbial-Mediated Emissions of Greenhouse Gas from Farmland Soils: A Review. Processes 2022, 10, 2361.

AMA Style

Wang H, Zhao R, Zhao D, Liu S, Fu J, Zhang Y, Dai N, Song D, Ding H. Microbial-Mediated Emissions of Greenhouse Gas from Farmland Soils: A Review. Processes. 2022; 10(11):2361.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Han, Rui Zhao, Dan Zhao, Shejiang Liu, Jianfeng Fu, Yuxin Zhang, Nan Dai, Dan Song, and Hui Ding. 2022. "Microbial-Mediated Emissions of Greenhouse Gas from Farmland Soils: A Review" Processes 10, no. 11: 2361.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop