[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"item-2936":3,"related-2936":45},{"id":4,"title":5,"url":6,"summary":7,"summary_zh":8,"content":8,"source_name":9,"source_url":6,"published_at":10,"category":11,"cover_url":8,"hotness":12,"is_selected":13,"score":14,"score_detail":15,"sources":21,"tags":23,"search_phrases":27,"slug":30,"view_count":31,"doi":32,"paper":33,"created_at":44},2936,"Green Climate Smart Agriculture For Sustainable Farming","https:\u002F\u002Fdoi.org\u002F10.13140\u002Frg.2.2.25577.45920","Green Climate Smart Agriculture For Sustainable Farming。OpenAlex",null,"OpenAlex","2026-09-18T00:00:00Z","论文",10,false,18,{"impact":16,"substance":17,"depth":17,"authority":16,"freshness":18,"relevant":19,"comment":20},3,2,8,1,"仅有标题与来源、无摘要实质内容，属空壳条目，不具备进入每日精选的信息增量。",[22],{"name":9,"url":6},[24,25,26],"农业信息化","可持续农业","气候智慧农业",[28,29],"气候智慧农业 农业信息化 可持续农业","气候智慧农业 农业信息化","气候智慧农业农业信息化可持续农业-2936",0,"10.13140\u002Frg.2.2.25577.45920",{"doi":32,"openalex_id":34,"authors":35,"venue":8,"cited_by_count":31,"oa_url":6,"card":8,"direction":42,"ingested_from":43},"W7213594129",[36,38,40],{"name":37,"orcid":8},"Abdussamad Saleh Saad",{"name":39,"orcid":8},"Mudassir Saad Ubale",{"name":41,"orcid":8},"Musa Muhammad Yusuf","智慧农业 \u002F 农业物联网","openalex","2026-09-19T23:30:12.029309Z",{"total":46,"page":19,"page_size":46,"items":47},6,[48,81,121,157,195,242],{"id":49,"title":50,"url":51,"summary":52,"summary_zh":8,"content":8,"source_name":9,"source_url":51,"published_at":10,"category":11,"cover_url":8,"hotness":12,"is_selected":13,"score":53,"score_detail":54,"sources":58,"tags":60,"search_phrases":62,"slug":65,"view_count":31,"doi":66,"paper":67,"created_at":80},2935,"Climate-smart agriculture in Gilgit- Baltistan","https:\u002F\u002Fdoi.org\u002F10.13140\u002Frg.2.2.35853.50403","Climate-smart agriculture in Gilgit- Baltistan。OpenAlex",30,{"impact":18,"substance":16,"depth":55,"authority":46,"freshness":56,"relevant":19,"comment":57},4,9,"仅标题与来源的OpenAlex条目，无摘要实质内容，信息增量极低，不建议进入每日精选。",[59],{"name":9,"url":51},[24,26,61],"吉尔吉特-巴尔蒂斯坦",[63,64],"吉尔吉特-巴尔蒂斯坦 气候智慧农业 农业信息化","吉尔吉特-巴尔蒂斯坦 气候智慧农业","吉尔吉特-巴尔蒂斯坦气候智慧农业农业信息化-2935","10.13140\u002Frg.2.2.35853.50403",{"doi":66,"openalex_id":68,"authors":69,"venue":8,"cited_by_count":31,"oa_url":51,"card":8,"direction":42,"ingested_from":43},"W7213593115",[70,72,74,76,78],{"name":71,"orcid":8},"Amjad Ali",{"name":73,"orcid":8},"Celik Dagmara",{"name":75,"orcid":8},"Saqib Katreniak",{"name":77,"orcid":8},"Alice Jafarey",{"name":79,"orcid":8},"Mesnard","2026-09-19T23:30:11.950871Z",{"id":82,"title":83,"url":84,"summary":85,"summary_zh":8,"content":8,"source_name":86,"source_url":84,"published_at":87,"category":11,"cover_url":8,"hotness":12,"is_selected":13,"score":88,"score_detail":89,"sources":94,"tags":96,"search_phrases":99,"slug":102,"view_count":31,"doi":103,"paper":104,"created_at":120},2745,"A novel framework for integrating diverse environmental effects of agricultural soil for sustainable remediation","https:\u002F\u002Fdoi.org\u002F10.1016\u002Fj.agsy.2026.104989","A novel framework for integrating diverse environmental effects of agricultural soil for sustainable remediation。Agricultural Systems","Agricultural Systems","2026-09-16T00:00:00Z",55,{"impact":18,"substance":90,"depth":91,"authority":92,"freshness":18,"relevant":19,"comment":93},12,14,13,"核心期刊论文，提出农业土壤多元环境效应整合框架，方法有新意但偏学术，产业与政策影响有限，可作为专业参考而非每日精选头条。",[95],{"name":86,"url":84},[24,25,97,98],"土壤修复","农业环境",[100,101],"农业信息化 可持续农业 农业环境 土壤修复","农业信息化 可持续农业","农业信息化可持续农业农业环境土壤修复-2745","10.1016\u002Fj.agsy.2026.104989",{"doi":103,"openalex_id":105,"authors":106,"venue":86,"cited_by_count":31,"oa_url":8,"card":8,"direction":8,"ingested_from":43},"W7213415381",[107,109,112,115,118],{"name":108,"orcid":8},"Yuanliang Jin",{"name":110,"orcid":111},"Muhan Qin","https:\u002F\u002Forcid.org\u002F0000-0002-7887-6833",{"name":113,"orcid":114},"Bin Zhao","https:\u002F\u002Forcid.org\u002F0000-0003-4268-6074",{"name":116,"orcid":117},"Zhenhuan Liu","https:\u002F\u002Forcid.org\u002F0000-0001-9932-9225",{"name":119,"orcid":8},"Shengqi Qi","2026-09-17T23:30:04.767424Z",{"id":122,"title":123,"url":124,"summary":125,"summary_zh":126,"content":8,"source_name":127,"source_url":124,"published_at":128,"category":11,"cover_url":8,"hotness":12,"is_selected":13,"score":129,"score_detail":130,"sources":134,"tags":136,"search_phrases":140,"slug":143,"view_count":31,"doi":144,"paper":145,"created_at":156},2146,"Carbon-Integrated Climate-Smart Finance for Sustainable Agriculture, Livelihoods & Nature-Based Solutions","https:\u002F\u002Fdoi.org\u002F10.22214\u002Fijraset.2026.84829","Climate-smart agriculture and sustainable rural livelihoods are central to strengthening climate resilience, food security, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable development. Despite substantial investments by governments, development agencies, banks, CSR programmes, and private investors, project appraisal largely relies on conventional indicators such as IRR, NPV, BCR, and ROI, while carbon benefits are typically assessed separately, limiting their integration into investment planning. The Climate Smart Financial Model (CSFM) developed by Srivastava (2026) integrates climate vulnerability, governance, land tenure, water availability, adaptive capacity, and agricultural productivity into financial sustainability assessment. This research proposes a Carbon-Integrated Climate Smart Financial Model (CI-CSFM) that incorporates expected carbon revenue as an endogenous investment variable. It uses methodology-specific ex-ante estimates of eligible\u002Fissuable tCO₂e, expected carbon price, and issuance probability, while treating verified or issued credits as subsequent realized revenue. The CI-CSFM is a financial integration framework, not a carbon quantification methodology. Carbon reductions\u002Fremovals are quantified using applicable approved methodologies and project-specific data, then incorporated into financial appraisal. The framework also integrates additionality, permanence, leakage, monitoring quality, and verification\u002Fissuance risk, and proposes an Integrated Climate Investment Sustainability Index (ICISI) for comparative investment prioritization.","气候智慧型农业与可持续农村生计对于增强气候韧性、粮食安全、生物多样性保护和可持续发展至关重要。尽管政府、发展机构、银行、企业社会责任项目以及私人投资者已投入大量资金，但项目评估在很大程度上仍依赖内部收益率（IRR）、净现值（NPV）、效益成本比（BCR）和投资回报率（ROI）等传统指标，而碳效益通常被单独评估，限制了其纳入投资规划。Srivastava（2026）开发的气候智慧型财务模型（CSFM）将气候脆弱性、治理、土地权属、水资源可得性、适应能力和农业生产力纳入财务可持续性评估。本研究提出碳整合气候智慧型财务模型（CI-CSFM），将预期碳收益作为内生投资变量纳入其中。该模型采用特定方法学下合格\u002F可签发tCO₂e的事前估算、预期碳价格和签发概率，同时将已核证或已签发的碳信用视为后续实现的收益。CI-CSFM是一个财务整合框架，而非碳量化方法学。碳减排\u002F清除量采用适用的获批方法学和项目特定数据进行量化，随后纳入财务评估。该框架还整合了额外性、永久性、泄漏、监测质量以及核证\u002F签发风险，并提出综合气候投资可持续性指数（ICISI），用于比较性投资优先排序。","International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology","2026-09-10T00:00:00Z",69,{"impact":90,"substance":131,"depth":132,"authority":90,"freshness":18,"relevant":19,"comment":133},20,17,"提出碳收益内生化的气候智慧型农业金融评估框架，方法有创新但属学术论文，对国内农业信息化实践影响有限。",[135],{"name":127,"url":124},[25,26,137,138,139],"农业金融","农业碳汇","碳交易",[141,142],"气候智慧农业 可持续农业 农业碳汇 农业金融","气候智慧农业 可持续农业","气候智慧农业可持续农业农业碳汇农业金融-2146","10.22214\u002Fijraset.2026.84829",{"doi":144,"openalex_id":146,"authors":147,"venue":127,"cited_by_count":31,"oa_url":124,"card":150,"direction":42,"ingested_from":43},"W7212148295",[148],{"name":149,"orcid":8},"Deepak Srivastava",{"tldr":151,"method":152,"finding":153,"direction":154,"opportunity":155},"提出碳整合气候智慧金融模型，将碳收益作为内生投资变量纳入农业项目财务评估。","构建CI-CSFM框架，用事前碳减排量、碳价与签发概率估算碳收入，并设ICISI","碳收益可内生融入财务评估，提升气候智慧农业投资决策的整合性与可比性。","农业绿色发展与碳","可探索碳收益不确定性、签发风险与农业项目财务指标耦合的实证与工具化研究。","2026-09-11T23:30:10.587397Z",{"id":158,"title":159,"url":160,"summary":161,"summary_zh":162,"content":8,"source_name":163,"source_url":160,"published_at":10,"category":11,"cover_url":8,"hotness":12,"is_selected":13,"score":164,"score_detail":165,"sources":169,"tags":171,"search_phrases":176,"slug":179,"view_count":31,"doi":180,"paper":181,"created_at":194},2964,"Tradeoff between economic and environmental assessment of paddy-wheat and maize-wheat cropping system in Indian Punjab: a pathway to sustainable agriculture","https:\u002F\u002Fdoi.org\u002F10.3389\u002Ffenvs.2026.1788317","Focusing on sustainable production in agriculture, this study evaluates the tradeoff between economic and environmental factors in replacing the Paddy-Wheat (PW) cropping system with the Maize-Wheat (MW) system in Indian Punjab. To evaluate the MW cropping system as a diversification option in Punjab from both economic and environmental perspectives, while comparing it to the PW cropping system across farm sizes. Primary data were collected using multi-stage sampling. Environmental performance was assessed using carbon footprint (CF) and water footprint (WF), while economic performance was evaluated through gross returns, net returns, and benefit–cost ratio. In addition, carbon efficiency (CE), carbon sustainability index (CSI), and eco-efficiency (EE) indicators were estimated to capture resource-use performance relative to environmental impacts. Results show that the PW system generates significantly higher net returns (1709.8 USD ha -1 ) than the MW system (1394.0 USD ha -1 ). The Farm carbon footprint (FCF) and Product carbon footprint (PCF) of MW and PW systems showed significant differences, with FCFs of 4918 and 11961 kg CO2e ha -1 and PCFs of 111.4 and 57.2 kg CO2e q -1 , respectively. Crop residue burning was the main GHG source in PW, whereas fertilizer production dominated emissions in MW. Small and medium farms were the most eco-efficient, highlighting the role of farm scale in sustainability outcomes. The findings suggest that while the MW system offers better environmental sustainability, it involves economic trade-offs. Implementing policy measures such as minimum support price, assured procurement, ethanol integration, precision agriculture, and carbon pricing could enhance MW adoption and help to balance economic returns and environmental benefits, encouraging sustainable and eco-friendly agricultural practices.","本研究以农业可持续生产为核心，评估了印度旁遮普邦以玉米-小麦（MW）种植制度替代水稻-小麦（PW）种植制度在经济与环境因素之间的权衡。研究旨在从经济与环境双重视角评价MW种植制度作为旁遮普邦多样化选项的可行性，并在不同农场规模下将其与PW种植制度进行比较。原始数据通过多阶段抽样获取。环境绩效采用碳足迹（CF）和水足迹（WF）进行评估，经济绩效则通过总收益、净收益和效益-成本比进行评价。此外，还估算了碳效率（CE）、碳可持续性指数（CSI）和生态效率（EE）指标，以衡量相对于环境影响的资源利用绩效。结果表明，PW制度的净收益（1709.8美元\u002F公顷）显著高于MW制度（1394.0美元\u002F公顷）。MW与PW制度的农场碳足迹（FCF）和产品碳足迹（PCF）存在显著差异，FCF分别为4918和11961 kg CO2e\u002F公顷，PCF分别为111.4和57.2 kg CO2e\u002F公担。PW制度的主要温室气体排放源为作物秸秆焚烧，而MW制度的排放则以肥料生产为主。小型和中型农场的生态效率最高，凸显了农场规模在可持续性结果中的作用。研究结果表明，尽管MW制度具有更好的环境可持续性，但存在经济上的权衡。实施最低支持价格、保底收购、乙醇整合、精准农业和碳定价等政策措施，可促进MW制度的采纳，有助于平衡经济收益与环境效益，鼓励可持续和环境友好的农业实践。","Frontiers in Environmental Science",78,{"impact":166,"substance":167,"depth":14,"authority":92,"freshness":56,"relevant":19,"comment":168},16,22,"基于一手数据的印旁遮普稻麦与玉米小麦轮作经济环境权衡研究，结论与政策建议具体，对可持续农业与种植结构调整有参考价值。",[170],{"name":163,"url":160},[172,25,173,174,175],"农业政策","碳足迹","水资源足迹","种植结构调整",[177,178],"印度旁遮普 稻麦轮作 玉米小麦","碳足迹 水足迹 种植制度","印度旁遮普稻麦轮作玉米小麦-2964","10.3389\u002Ffenvs.2026.1788317",{"doi":180,"openalex_id":182,"authors":183,"venue":163,"cited_by_count":31,"oa_url":160,"card":189,"direction":154,"ingested_from":43},"W7213535698",[184,186],{"name":185,"orcid":8},"Arshdeep Singh",{"name":187,"orcid":188},"Poonam Kataria","https:\u002F\u002Forcid.org\u002F0009-0004-1401-2405",{"tldr":190,"method":191,"finding":192,"direction":154,"opportunity":193},"比较印度旁遮普省稻麦与玉米麦轮作的经济环境权衡，评估玉米麦作为替代的可持续性。","多阶段抽样调查，碳足迹、水足迹、碳效率、生态效率及经济指标测算。","玉米麦环境更优但净收益更低；小中型农场生态效率最高，秸秆焚烧是稻麦主要排放源。","可研究不同农场规模下碳定价与精准农业对玉米麦替代稻麦的经济环境协同优化路径。","2026-09-19T23:31:08.112424Z",{"id":196,"title":197,"url":198,"summary":199,"summary_zh":200,"content":8,"source_name":201,"source_url":198,"published_at":10,"category":11,"cover_url":8,"hotness":202,"is_selected":13,"score":203,"score_detail":204,"sources":206,"tags":210,"search_phrases":215,"slug":218,"view_count":31,"doi":219,"paper":220,"created_at":241},2930,"SMALLHOLDER FARMERS' PERCEPTIONS AND USE OF CLIMATE-SMART AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES IN SOUTHWESTERN NIGERIA","https:\u002F\u002Fdoi.org\u002F10.5281\u002Fzenodo.22832942","Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is increasingly promoted as a means of strengthening the resilience of smallholder farming systems to climate variability. Yet awareness of CSA does not necessarily translate into actual implementation, particularly where farmers face financial, technical and institutional constraints. This study examined the roles of climate experience, agricultural information and socioeconomic characteristics in CSA adoption among smallholder farmers in southwestern Nigeria. Primary data were obtained through a structured cross-sectional survey of 190 farmers in Akinyele Local Government Area of Oyo State. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise respondents and examine CSA awareness, agricultural information, experience of weather variability, willingness to adopt, reported adoption and perceived constraints. Because the adoption outcome was highly imbalanced, Firth-penalised logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with actual CSA adoption. The results show that 98.4% of respondents were aware of CSA and 96.3% reported experiencing changes in weather conditions. Although 96.3% expressed willingness to adopt CSA, 88.4% reported actual use, indicating an intention–implementation gap. Water-conservation technologies received the highest proportion of “very important” responses (83.7%), followed by organic manure (80.5%), drought-resistant crops (80.0%) and crop rotation (79.5%). Government extension officers were the principal reported source of agricultural information (55.3%). Implementation cost was the leading constraint (54.7%), followed by uncertainty about effectiveness (25.8%) and difficulty learning new techniques (19.5%). In the Firth model, experience of changing weather conditions was the only statistically significant predictor of adoption (OR = 10.401, 95% CI: 3.118–34.694, p \u003C 0.001). Gender, education, farm size and extension information were not statistically significant. The findings indicate that CSA adoption in the study area is not adequately explained by awareness alone. Farmers’ direct experience of climatic variability appears to be an important stimulus for adaptation, while financial and technical constraints can restrict implementation. Climate adaptation policies should therefore move beyond general awareness creation towards practical extension, affordable inputs, locally relevant climate information and resource-supported implementation.","气候智慧型农业（climate-smart agriculture, CSA）日益被视为增强小农户耕作系统对气候变异性适应能力的手段。然而，对气候智慧型农业的认知并不必然转化为实际实施，尤其是在农户面临资金、技术和制度约束的情况下。本研究考察了气候经验、农业信息和社会经济特征在尼日利亚西南部小农户采用气候智慧型农业中的作用。原始数据通过结构化横断面调查获得，调查对象为奥约州阿基涅莱地方政府辖区的190名农户。采用描述性统计对受访者特征进行刻画，并考察气候智慧型农业认知、农业信息、天气变异性经历、采用意愿、报告采用情况及感知约束。由于采用结果高度不平衡，研究采用Firth惩罚逻辑回归识别与实际采用气候智慧型农业独立相关的因素。结果表明，98.4%的受访者知晓气候智慧型农业，96.3%报告经历了天气状况变化。尽管96.3%表示愿意采用气候智慧型农业，但88.4%报告实际使用，表明存在意愿—实施差距。节水技术获得“非常重要”评价的比例最高（83.7%），其次为有机肥（80.5%）、抗旱作物（80.0%）和轮作（79.5%）。政府推广人员是报告的主要农业信息来源（55.3%）。实施成本是首要约束（54.7%），其次是对有效性的不确定（25.8%）和学习新技术的困难（19.5%）。在Firth模型中，经历天气状况变化是采用行为的唯一具有统计学意义的预测因素（OR = 10.401，95% CI：3.118–34.694，p \u003C 0.001）。性别、教育程度、农场规模和推广信息在统计上不显著。研究结果表明，仅凭认知不足以充分解释研究区域的气候智慧型农业采用情况。农户对气候变异性的直接经历似乎是适应行为的重要刺激因素，而资金和技术约束可能限制实施。因此，气候适应政策应从一般性认知宣传转向实践推广、可负担投入、地方相关气候信息和资源支持下的实施。","Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)",25,65,{"impact":18,"substance":131,"depth":166,"authority":90,"freshness":56,"relevant":19,"comment":205},"基于190户调查的实证研究，揭示气候智慧农业意愿与实施落差，对农业信息化推广有参考价值，但属区域性研究、影响层级有限。",[207,208],{"name":201,"url":198},{"name":201,"url":209},"https:\u002F\u002Fdoi.org\u002F10.5281\u002Fzenodo.22832941",[211,26,212,213,214],"小农户","农业推广","尼日利亚","农业信息",[216,217],"尼日利亚 小农户 气候智慧农业","Oyo State 农业推广","尼日利亚小农户气候智慧农业-2930","10.5281\u002Fzenodo.22832942",{"doi":219,"openalex_id":221,"authors":222,"venue":201,"cited_by_count":31,"oa_url":198,"card":235,"direction":42,"ingested_from":43},"W7213578578",[223,225,227,229,231,233],{"name":224,"orcid":8},"Folasade J. Odekunle",{"name":226,"orcid":8},"Adedotun A. Adetunji",{"name":228,"orcid":8},"Idris O. JINADU",{"name":230,"orcid":8},"Adedayo S. Adediran",{"name":232,"orcid":8},"Gabriel O. Adebayo",{"name":234,"orcid":8},"Akeem Adewole",{"tldr":236,"method":237,"finding":238,"direction":239,"opportunity":240},"研究尼日利亚小农户对气候智慧农业的认知、采用意愿与实际使用及其影响因素。","对奥约州190户农户问卷调查，采用Firth惩罚逻辑回归分析采用因素。","认知与意愿高但实际采用存在落差，天气变化经历是唯一显著预测因素。","数字乡村与农业信息化","可探索农业信息传播与气候经历如何协同促进小农户从意愿到实际采用。","2026-09-19T23:30:11.305594Z",{"id":243,"title":244,"url":245,"summary":246,"summary_zh":247,"content":8,"source_name":248,"source_url":245,"published_at":10,"category":11,"cover_url":8,"hotness":12,"is_selected":13,"score":249,"score_detail":250,"sources":253,"tags":255,"search_phrases":261,"slug":264,"view_count":31,"doi":265,"paper":266,"created_at":283},2928,"Biochar 2.0 in Climate-Smart Agriculture: A Critical Review of Designer Biochars, Soil Microbiome Responses, Nutrient-Use Efficiency and Greenhouse-Gas Mitigation","https:\u002F\u002Fdoi.org\u002F10.9734\u002Fajsspn\u002F2026\u002Fv12i4764","Biochar has moved from a broadly promoted soil amendment to a material that is deliberately engineered for defined agronomic and climatic functions. This transition, described here as a shift towards designer biochars, raises questions that the earlier literature was not designed to answer: whether tailoring feedstock, pyrolysis conditions and post-synthesis modification produces reproducible gains in nutrient-use efficiency, whether the accompanying soil microbiome changes are functionally meaningful or largely descriptive, and whether greenhouse-gas benefits observed in short experiments persist under field management and withstand carbon-accounting scrutiny. This critical narrative review examines the evidence linking biochar properties to soil microbial responses, nutrient retention and transformation, and the mitigation of nitrous oxide, methane and carbon dioxide in agricultural soils. Literature was identified through structured searching of open scholarly indexes, agricultural and intergovernmental repositories, and citation tracking, with every retained source verified against an authoritative bibliographic record. The synthesis indicates that the strongest and most reproducible effects are pedoclimatic rather than material-specific: responses concentrate in acidic, coarse-textured, nutrient-depleted and tropical soils, whereas temperate fertile systems frequently show negligible agronomic gain. Microbiome studies consistently report compositional turnover with little change in alpha diversity, and the functional interpretation of these shifts rests heavily on marker-gene abundance rather than demonstrated process rates. Nitrous oxide suppression is well supported in aggregate but varies by a factor of five across syntheses, and recent field work shows that freshly applied high-rate biochar can increase emissions. Methane outcomes in flooded systems depend on water management and application history. Carbon permanence remains contested because the principal proxies used for crediting are informative about carbonisation rather than about in-soil residence under field weathering. Confidence is highest for liming, cation retention and short-term nitrogen conservation, and lowest for long-term net climate benefit at landscape scale. Priorities include multi-year factorial field trials that pair engineered materials with process-level measurement, standardised reporting of biochar properties, and accounting frameworks calibrated on weathered rather than freshly produced material.","生物炭已从一种被广泛推广的土壤改良剂，转变为一种为特定农艺和气候功能而刻意设计的材料。这一转变——本文将其描述为向“设计型生物炭”的转向——提出了早期文献未曾设计回答的问题：定制原料、热解条件和合成后修饰是否能在养分利用效率上产生可重复的增益；伴随而来的土壤微生物组变化在功能上是否有意义，还是主要停留在描述层面；以及在短期实验中观察到的温室气体效益能否在田间管理下持续存在，并经受住碳核算的审视。这篇批判性叙述综述考察了将生物炭性质与土壤微生物响应、养分保持与转化，以及农业土壤中氧化亚氮、甲烷和二氧化碳减排联系起来的证据。文献通过结构化检索开放学术索引、农业和政府间知识库以及引文追踪来识别，所有保留的来源均对照权威书目记录进行了核实。综合结果表明，最强且最可重复的效应是土壤气候性的，而非材料特异性的：响应集中于酸性、粗质地、养分贫瘠和热带土壤，而温带肥沃系统往往显示可忽略的农艺增益。微生物组研究一致报告组成上的更替而α多样性变化甚微，且对这些变化的功能解读在很大程度上依赖于标记基因丰度，而非已证实的过程速率。氧化亚氮抑制在总体上得到较好支持，但不同综合研究之间相差可达五倍，且近期田间工作表明，新施用的高用量生物炭可能增加排放。淹水系统中的甲烷结果取决于水分管理和施用历史。碳永久性仍存争议，因为用于信用核算的主要替代指标所反映的是碳化程度，而非田间风化条件下的土壤内驻留时间。置信度最高的是石灰效应、阳离子保持和短期氮素保全，最低的是景观尺度上的长期净气候效益。优先事项包括：将工程化材料与过程水平测量相结合的多年度析因田间试验、生物炭性质的标准化报告，以及基于风化而非","Asian Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition",80,{"impact":14,"substance":167,"depth":251,"authority":92,"freshness":18,"relevant":19,"comment":252},19,"系统评述设计型生物炭在土壤微生物、养分效率与温室气体减排上的证据强度与不确定性，学术增量扎实，对农业绿色低碳与土壤健康方向有参考价值。",[254],{"name":248,"url":245},[256,257,26,258,259,260],"生物炭","土壤健康","土壤微生物","温室气体减排","养分利用效率",[262,263],"生物炭 温室气体 减排","养分利用效率 气候智慧农业 温室气体减排 土壤微生物","生物炭温室气体减排-2928","10.9734\u002Fajsspn\u002F2026\u002Fv12i4764",{"doi":265,"openalex_id":267,"authors":268,"venue":248,"cited_by_count":31,"oa_url":245,"card":278,"direction":42,"ingested_from":43},"W7213554252",[269,271,274,276],{"name":270,"orcid":8},"K. G. Rosin",{"name":272,"orcid":273},"Aditya V Machnoor","https:\u002F\u002Forcid.org\u002F0009-0001-5777-9188",{"name":275,"orcid":8},"Rakesh Kokatnoor",{"name":277,"orcid":8},"Arun S. Kalasad",{"tldr":279,"method":280,"finding":281,"direction":154,"opportunity":282},"综述设计型生物炭在气候智慧农业中的效果，指出其农艺与减排效益高度依赖土壤气候条件。","结构化文献检索与引文追踪，整合生物炭性质、土壤微生物、养分与温室气体证据。","最强效应集中于酸性贫瘠热带土壤，温带肥沃土壤增益有限；氧化亚氮抑制变异大，碳持久性存疑。","需多年多因子田间试验，结合过程速率测量与风化态碳核算，验证设计型生物炭的长期净气候效益。","2026-09-19T23:30:11.160909Z"]