Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Biochar in climate change mitigation

Subjects

Abstract

Climate change mitigation not only requires reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, but also withdrawal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. Here we review the relationship between emissions reductions and CO2 removal by biochar systems, which are based on pyrolysing biomass to produce biochar, used for soil application, and renewable bioenergy. Half of the emission reductions and the majority of CO2 removal result from the one to two orders of magnitude longer persistence of biochar than the biomass it is made from. Globally, biochar systems could deliver emission reductions of 3.4–6.3 PgCO2e, half of which constitutes CO2 removal. Relevant trade-offs exist between making and sequestering biochar in soil or producing more energy. Importantly, these trade-offs depend on what type of energy is replaced: relative to producing bioenergy, emissions of biochar systems increase by 3% when biochar replaces coal, whereas emissions decrease by 95% when biochar replaces renewable energy. The lack of a clear relationship between crop yield increases in response to fertilizer and to biochar additions suggests opportunities for biochar to increase crop yields where fertilizer alone is not effective, but also questions blanket recommendations based on known fertilizer responses. Locally specific decision support must recognize these relationships and trade-offs to establish carbon-trading mechanisms that facilitate a judicious implementation commensurate with climate change mitigation needs.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Climate mitigation effects of biochar systems within the total biochar system.

tree, crop, grass and bin icons reproduced from Flaticon.com

Fig. 2: Relative carbon remaining with biochar systems compared with those of alternative baselines.
Fig. 3: Persistence of biochar as a function of its carbon, oxygen and hydrogen content or its pyrolysis temperature.
Fig. 4: Global plant growth responses and CDR with biochar.
Fig. 5: Relationship of GHG emission reductions and CDR.
Fig. 6: Framework for carbon accounting approaches that focus on GHG emissions, CDR and their combination.

References

  1. Field, C. B. & Mach, K. J. Rightsizing carbon dioxide removal. Science 356, 706–707 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wu, P. et al. A scientometric review of biochar research in the past 20 years (1998–2018). Biochar 1, 23–43 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Schmidt, M. W. & Noack, A. G. Black carbon in soils and sediments: analysis, distribution, implications, and current challenges. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 14, 777–793 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Azzi, E. S., Karltun, E. & Sundberg, C. Prospective life cycle assessment of large-scale biochar production and use for negative emissions in Stockholm. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 8466–8476 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Yang, Q. et al. Greenhouse gas emission analysis of biomass moving-bed pyrolytic polygeneration systems based on Aspen Plus and hybrid LCA in China. Energy Procedia 158, 3690–3695 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Matuštík, J., Hnátková, T. & Kočí, V. Life cycle assessment of biochar-to-soil systems: a review. J. Cleaner Prod. 259, 120998 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Roberts, K., Gloy, B., Joseph, S., Scott, N. & Lehmann, J. Life cycle assessment of biochar systems: estimating the energetic, economic and climate change potential. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 827–833 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Papageorgiou, A., Azzi, E. S., Enell, A. & Sundberg, C. Biochar produced from wood waste for soil remediation in Sweden: carbon sequestration and other environmental impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 776, 145953 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Phillips, C. L. et al. Can biochar conserve water in Oregon agricultural soils? Soil Till. Res. 198, 104525 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Qian, L. et al. Biochar compound fertilizer as an option to reach high productivity but low carbon intensity in rice agriculture of China. Carbon Manage. 5, 145–154 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Meyer, S., Bright, R. M., Fischer, D., Schulz, H. & Glaser, B. Albedo impact on the suitability of biochar systems to mitigate global warming. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 12726–12734 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tisserant, A. & Cherubini, F. Potentials, limitations, co-benefits, and trade-offs of biochar applications to soils for climate change mitigation. Land 8, 179 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Whitman, T., Hanley, K., Enders, A. & Lehmann, J. Predicting pyrogenic organic matter mineralization from its initial properties and implications for carbon management. Org. Geochem. 64, 76–83 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lefebvre, D. et al. Modelling the potential for soil carbon sequestration using biochar from sugarcane residues in Brazil. Sci. Rep. 10, 19479 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Zhao, N., Lehmann, J. & You, F. Poultry waste valorization via pyrolysis technologies: economic and environmental life cycle optimization for sustainable bioenergy systems. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8, 4633–4646 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Woolf, D. et al. Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat. Commun. 1, 56 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Werner, C. et al. Biogeochemical potential of biomass pyrolysis systems for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 044036 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wang, J., Xiong, Z. & Kuzyakov, Y. Biochar stability in soil: meta‐analysis of decomposition and priming effects. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 8, 512–523 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  19. AMS.III-L.: Avoidance of Methane Production from Biomass Decay Through Controlled Pyrolysis (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2007); https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/72XV0Z89701S2D87UBPFD57WE5AFP5

  20. Kanaly, R. A. & Harayama, S. Biodegradation of high-molecular-weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by bacteria. J. Bacteriol. 182, 2059–2067 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Keiluweit, M., Nico, P. S., Johnson, M. G. & Kleber, M. Dynamic molecular structure of plant biomass-derived black carbon (biochar). Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 1247–1253 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Singh, B. P., Cowie, A. L. & Smernik, R. J. Biochar carbon stability in a clayey soil as a function of feedstock and pyrolysis temperature. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 11770–11778 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  23. McBeath, A. V., Wurster, C. M. & Bird, M. I. Influence of feedstock properties and pyrolysis conditions on biochar carbon stability as determined by hydrogen pyrolysis. Biomass Bioenergy 73, 155–173 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Knicker, H. How does fire affect the nature and stability of soil organic nitrogen and carbon? A review. Biogeochemistry 85, 91–118 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Spokas, K. A. Review of the stability of biochar in soils: predictability of O:C molar ratios. Carbon Manage. 1, 289–303 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lehmann, J. et al. in Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation (eds Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S.) 235–282 (Taylor and Francis, 2015)

  27. Leng, L., Huang, H., Li, H., Li, J. & Zhou, W. Biochar stability assessment methods: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 647, 210–222 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Peters, J. F., Iribarren, D. & Dufour, J. Biomass pyrolysis for biochar or energy applications? A life cycle assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 5195–5202 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hammond, J., Shackley, S., Sohi, S. & Brownsort, P. Prospective life cycle carbon abatement for pyrolysis biochar systems in the UK. Energy Policy 39, 2646–2655 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Abney, R. B. & Berhe, A. A. Pyrogenic carbon erosion: implications for stock and persistence of pyrogenic carbon in soil. Front. Earth Sci. 6, 26 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Masiello, C. A. & Berhe, A. A. First interactions with the hydrologic cycle determine pyrogenic carbon’s fate in the Earth system. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 45, 2394–2398 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sun, T. et al. Suppressing peatland methane production by electron snorkeling through pyrogenic carbon. Nat. Commun. 12, 4119 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Nguyen, B. T., Trinh, N. N. & Bach, Q. V. Methane emissions and associated microbial activities from paddy salt-affected soil as influenced by biochar and cow manure addition. Appl. Soil Ecol. 152, 103531 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jeffery, S., Verheijen, F. G. A., Kammann, C. & Abalos, D. Biochar effects on methane emissions from soils: a meta-analysis. Soil Biol. Biochem. 101, 251–258 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Song, X. et al. Effects of biochar application on fluxes of three biogenic greenhouse gases: a meta-analysis. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2, e01202 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cong, W., Meng, J. & Ying, S. C. Impact of soil properties on the soil methane flux response to biochar addition: a meta-analysis. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 20, 1202–1209 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pascual, M. B. et al. Linking biochars properties to their capacity to modify aerobic CH4 oxidation in an upland agricultural soil. Geoderma 363, 114179 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Karhu, K., Mattila, T., Bergström, I. & Regina, K. Biochar addition to agricultural soil increased CH4 uptake and water holding capacity—results from a short-term pilot field study. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 140, 309–313 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Borchard, N. et al. Biochar, soil and land-use interactions that reduce nitrate leaching and N2O emissions: a meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 2354–2364 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Klüpfel, L., Keiluweit, M., Kleber, M. & Sander, M. Redox properties of plant biomass-derived black carbon (biochar). Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 5601–5611 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Sun, T. et al. Rapid electron transfer by the carbon matrix in natural pyrogenic carbon. Nat. Commun. 8, 14873 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Fungo, B. et al. Ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions from a field Ultisol amended with tithonia green manure, urea, and biochar. Biol. Fertil. Soils 55, 135–148 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Nelissen, V., Saha, B. K., Ruysschaert, G. & Boeckx, P. Effect of different biochar and fertilizer types on N2O and NO emissions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 70, 244–255 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ding, F. et al. A meta-analysis and critical evaluation of influencing factors on soil carbon priming following biochar amendment. J. Soils Sediments 18, 1507–1517 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Weng, Z. H. et al. Biochar built soil carbon over a decade by stabilizing rhizodeposits. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 371–376 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Blanco-Canqui, H., Laird, D. A., Heaton, E. A., Rathke, S. & Acharya, B. S. Soil carbon increased by twice the amount of biochar carbon applied after 6 years: field evidence of negative priming. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 12, 240–251 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Liang, B. et al. Black carbon affects the cycling of non-black carbon in soil. Org. Geochem. 41, 206–213 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Borchard, N. et al. Black carbon and soil properties at historical charcoal production sites in Germany. Geoderma 232–234, 236–242 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kerré, B., Bravo, C. T., Leifeld, J., Cornelissen, G. & Smolders, E. Historical soil amendment with charcoal increases sequestration of non-charcoal carbon: a comparison among methods of black carbon quantification. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 67, 324–331 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hernandez-Soriano, M. C. et al. Long-term effect of biochar on the stabilization of recent carbon: soils with historical inputs of charcoal. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 8, 371–381 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Paustian, K. et al. Climate-smart soils. Nature 532, 49–57 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Six, J., Conant, R. T., Paul, E. A. & Paustian, K. Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: implications for C-saturation of soils. Plant Soil 241, 155–176 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Totsche, K. U. et al. Microaggregates in soils. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 181, 104–136 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Whitman, T. & Lehmann, J. A dual-isotope approach to allow conclusive partitioning between three sources. Nat. Commun. 6, 8708 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Luo, Y. et al. Priming effects in biochar enriched soils using a three-source-partitioning approach: 14C labelling and 13C natural abundance. Soil Biol. Biochem. 106, 28–35 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Shi, Q. et al. Soil organic and inorganic carbon sequestration by consecutive biochar application: results from a decade field experiment. Soil Use Manage. 37, 95–103 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Dumortier, J. et al. Global land-use and carbon emission implications from biochar application to cropland in the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 258, 120684 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Smith, P. et al. Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal and their impacts on ecosystem services and the sustainable development goals. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 255–286 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Jeffery, S. et al. Biochar boosts tropical but not temperate crop yields. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 053001 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Dai, Y., Zheng, H., Jiang, Z. & Xing, B. Combined effects of biochar properties and soil conditions on plant growth: a meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 713, 136635 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ye, L. et al. Biochar effects on crop yields with and without fertilizer: a meta‐analysis of field studies using separate controls. Soil Use Manage. 36, 2–18 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Schmidt, H. P., Pandit, B. H., Cornelissen, G. & Kammann, C. I. Biochar‐based fertilization with liquid nutrient enrichment: 21 field trials covering 13 crop species in Nepal. Land Degrad. Dev. 28, 2324–2342 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Amelung, W. et al. Towards implementing a global-scale soil climate mitigation strategy. Nat. Commun. 11, 5427 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Garcia-Ibañez, P., Sanchez-Garcia, M., Sánchez-Monedero, M. A., Cayuela, M. L. & Moreno, D. A. Olive tree pruning derived biochar increases glucosinolate concentrations in broccoli. Sci. Hortic. 267, 109329 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Rubin, R. L., Anderson, T. R. & Ballantine, K. A. Biochar simultaneously reduces nutrient leaching and greenhouse gas emissions in restored wetland soils. Wetlands 40, 1981–1991 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Weyant, J. Some contributions of integrated assessment models of global climate change. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 11, 115–137 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Zhang, Y. et al. Life cycle emissions and cost of producing electricity from coal, natural gas, and wood pellets in Ontario, Canada. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 538–544 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Crombie, K., Mašek, O., Cross, A. & Sohi, S. Biochar—synergies and trade‐offs between soil enhancing properties and C sequestration potential. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 7, 1161–1175 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Li, L., You, S. & Wang, X. Optimal design of standalone hybrid renewable energy systems with biochar production in remote rural areas: a case study. Energy Proc. 158, 688–693 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Smebye, A. B., Sparrevik, M., Schmidt, H. P. & Cornelissen, G. Life-cycle assessment of biochar production systems in tropical rural areas: comparing flame curtain kilns to other production methods. Biomass Bioenergy 101, 35–43 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Jeffery, S. et al. The way forward in biochar research: targeting trade-offs between the potential wins. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 7, 1–13 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ogle, S. M. et al. in Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Vol. 4 (eds Calvo Buendia, E., et al.) Ch. 2, Appendix 4 (IPCC, 2019).

  73. Microsoft Carbon Removal: Lessons from an Early Corporate Purchase (Microsoft, 2021); https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE4MDlc

  74. Donofrio, S. et al. The Only Constant is Change: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2020 (Forest Trends Association, 2020).

  75. Dutta, B. & Raghavan, V. A life cycle assessment of environmental and economic balance of biochar systems in Quebec. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 5, 106 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Cheng, F., Luo, H. & Colosi, L. M. Slow pyrolysis as a platform for negative emissions technology: an integration of machine learning models, life cycle assessment, and economic analysis. Energy Convers. Manage. 223, 113258 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Frank, J. R., Brown, T. R., Malmsheimer, R. W., Volk, T. A. & Ha, H. The financial trade‐off between the production of biochar and biofuel via pyrolysis under uncertainty. Biofuel Bioprod. Bioref. 14, 594–604 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Woolf, D., Lehmann, J., Fisher, E. & Angenent, L. Biofuels from pyrolysis in perspective: trade-offs between energy yields and soil-carbon additions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 6492–6499 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Woolf, D., Lehmann, J. & Lee, D. Optimal bioenergy power generation for climate change mitigation with or without carbon sequestration. Nat. Commun. 7, 13160 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Owsianiak, M. et al. Environmental and economic impacts of biochar production and agricultural use in six developing and middle-income countries. Sci. Total Environ. 755, 142455 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Certification of the Carbon Sink Potential of Biochar Version 2.1E (EBC, accessed 20 March 2012); https://www.european-biochar.org/media/doc/26/c_en_sink-value_2-1.pdf

  82. Buss, W., Bogush, A., Ignatyev, K. & Masek, O. Unlocking the fertilizer potential of waste-derived biochar. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8, 12295–12303 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Beerling, D. J. et al. Potential for large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands. Nature 583, 242–248 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Buss, W., Yeates, K., Rohling, E. & Borevitz, J. Enhancing natural cycles in agro-ecosystems to boost plant carbon capture and soil storage. Oxford Open Clim. Change 1, kgab006 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Man, K. Y., Chow, K. L., Man, Y. B., Mo, W. Y. & Wong, M. H. Use of biochar as feed supplements for animal farming. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 187–217 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Zhou, X. et al. Life cycle assessment of biochar modified bioasphalt derived from biomass. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8, 14568–14575 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Li, Y., Xing, B., Ding, Y., Han, X. & Wang, S. A critical review of the production and advanced utilization of biochar via selective pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass. Biores. Technol. 312, 123614 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Sciarria, T. P. et al. Metal-free activated biochar as an oxygen reduction reaction catalyst in single chamber microbial fuel cells. J. Power Source 462, 228183 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  89. Woolf, D. & Lehmann, J. Modelling the long-term response to positive and negative priming of soil organic carbon by black carbon. Biogeochemistry 111, 83–95 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Enders, A., Hanley, K., Whitman, T., Joseph, S. & Lehmann, J. Characterization of biochars to evaluate recalcitrance and agronomic performance. Biores. Technol. 114, 644–653 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  91. World Energy Outlook 2018 (International Energy Agency, 2018).

  92. Slavich, P. G. et al. Contrasting effects of manure and green waste biochars on the properties of an acidic ferralsol and productivity of a subtropical pasture. Plant Soil 366, 213–227 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  93. Singh, B. P. et al. In situ persistence and migration of biochar carbon and its impact on native carbon emission in contrasting soils under managed temperate pastures. PLoS ONE 10, e0141560 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Fang, Y. et al. Interactive carbon priming, microbial response and biochar persistence in a Vertisol with varied inputs of biochar and labile organic matter. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 70, 960–974 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  95. Budai, A., Rasse, D. P., Lagomarsino, A., Lerch, T. Z. & Paruch, L. Biochar persistence, priming and microbial responses to pyrolysis temperature series. Biol. Fertil. Soils 52, 749–761 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Liu, B. et al. A fast chemical oxidation method for predicting the long-term mineralization of biochar in soils. Sci. Total Environ. 718, 137390 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Lal, P. et al. The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. J. Soil Water Conserv. 73, 145A–152A (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  98. Lal, R. Enhancing crop yields in the developing countries through restoration of the soil organic carbon pool in agricultural lands. Land Degrad. Dev. 17, 197–209 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

M.L.C. acknowledges funding from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities co-funded with the EU FEDER project no. RTI2018-099417-B-I00. J.L. and D.W. were funded by the Fondation des Fondateurs, Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability, NIFA (no. 2014-67003-22069) and CIDA. T.W. was funded by the US DOE grant no. DE-SC0020351.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All the authors contributed to the discussions that formed the basis for this Review, and to the writing and editing of the manuscript. M.C.-A. analysed the crop yield data, J.L. and D.W. quantified the biochar persistence, and D.W. and J.E.A. re-analysed global GHG emission data. M.L.C. took the lead on the section on non-CO2 emissions, T.W. on priming, D.W., A.C. and C.K. on biomass use, and C.A.M. on erosion. J.L. drew the figures and Extended Data Table 1.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Lehmann.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Geoscience thanks Yakov Kuzyakov, Charlene Kelly and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor Xujia Jiang; Thomas Richardson.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Table 1 Recommendations for environmental and socio-economic optimization and research on the climate change mitigation effects of biochar systems

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lehmann, J., Cowie, A., Masiello, C.A. et al. Biochar in climate change mitigation. Nat. Geosci. 14, 883–892 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00852-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00852-8

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing