Geochemistry of carbon sequestration through woody biomass burial

James L Gooding; James L Gooding

doi:10.3934/geosci.2026003

AIMS Geosciences

2026, Volume 12, Issue 1: 74-95. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2026003

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Geochemistry of carbon sequestration through woody biomass burial

James L Gooding ^,

Geoclime LLC, P.O. Box 13, 1600 Main Street, Seabrook Texas 77586-0013 USA

Received: 07 July 2025 Revised: 06 November 2025 Accepted: 08 December 2025 Published: 12 January 2026

Apparent mechanisms and rates of wood decay under natural geologic burial can be reconciled with general principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, including effects of biotic intermediaries on reaction pathways. A simplified two-step decay model for woody biomass burial (WBB) involves the hydrolysis of wood biopolymers to release monomers, which then decompose into CO₂ or CH₄. Gibbs free energy values for individual reactions indicate that (a) biopolymer hydrolysis follows a stability sequence of lignin ≫ cellulose > hemicellulose, and (b) monomer decomposition is driven more strongly toward CO₂ (compared with CH₄) unless biological intervention occurs. Key variables are wood composition, water activity, oxygen activity, and enzymatic activity (from bacteria or fungi) under different burial conditions. Model curves for wood decay under geologic burial indicate that more than 97% of original carbon in tree wood can be preserved (in undecayed form) for 100 y and that 50% (and up to nearly 90%) of original carbon can be preserved for 1,000 y. The model aligns with empirical evidence from ancient tree wood buried thousands of years ago by natural floods, landslides, and volcanic eruptions. It also suggests that WBB can be an effective, nature-based method for carbon sequestration over timescales which are relevant to climatology.
- biomass,
- carbon,
- climate,
- climatology,
- geochemistry,
- sequestration,
- woody biomass
Citation: James L Gooding. Geochemistry of carbon sequestration through woody biomass burial[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2026, 12(1): 74-95. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2026003

Related Papers:

Abstract

Apparent mechanisms and rates of wood decay under natural geologic burial can be reconciled with general principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, including effects of biotic intermediaries on reaction pathways. A simplified two-step decay model for woody biomass burial (WBB) involves the hydrolysis of wood biopolymers to release monomers, which then decompose into CO₂ or CH₄. Gibbs free energy values for individual reactions indicate that (a) biopolymer hydrolysis follows a stability sequence of lignin ≫ cellulose > hemicellulose, and (b) monomer decomposition is driven more strongly toward CO₂ (compared with CH₄) unless biological intervention occurs. Key variables are wood composition, water activity, oxygen activity, and enzymatic activity (from bacteria or fungi) under different burial conditions. Model curves for wood decay under geologic burial indicate that more than 97% of original carbon in tree wood can be preserved (in undecayed form) for 100 y and that 50% (and up to nearly 90%) of original carbon can be preserved for 1,000 y. The model aligns with empirical evidence from ancient tree wood buried thousands of years ago by natural floods, landslides, and volcanic eruptions. It also suggests that WBB can be an effective, nature-based method for carbon sequestration over timescales which are relevant to climatology.

References

[1]	Marra MJ, Alloway BV, Newnham RM (2006) Paleoenvironmental reconstruction of a well-preserved Stage 7 forest sequence catastrophically buried by basaltic eruptive deposits, northern New Zealand. Quat Sci Rev 25: 2143–2161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.01.031 doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.01.031
[2]	DiMichele WA, Falcon-Lang HA (2011) Pennsylvanian 'fossil forests' in growth position (T⁰ assemblages): origin, taphonomic bias and palaeoecological insights. J Geol Soc 168: 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1144/0016-76492010-103 doi: 10.1144/0016-76492010-103
[3]	Mustoe GE (2018) Non-mineralized fossil wood. Geosciences 8: 223. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8060223 doi: 10.3390/geosciences8060223
[4]	Malhi Y, Meir P, Brown S (2002) Forests, carbon and global climate. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 360: 1567–1591. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2002.1020 doi: 10.1098/rsta.2002.1020
[5]	Zeng N (2008) Carbon sequestration via wood burial. Carbon Balance Manage 3: 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1 doi: 10.1186/1750-0680-3-1
[6]	Terlouw T, Bauer C, Christian, et al. (2021) Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide removal technologies: a critical review. Energy Environ Sci 14: 1701–1721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D0EE03757E doi: 10.1039/D0EE03757E
[7]	Amelese JA (2025) Terrestrial Storage of Biomass (Biomass Burial): A Natural, Carbon-Efficient, and Low-Cost Method for Removing CO₂ from air. Appl Sci 15: 2183. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15042183 doi: 10.3390/app15042183
[8]	Mukhortova L, Pashenova N, Meteleva M, et al. (2021) Temperature sensitivity of CO₂ and CH₄ fluxes from coarse woody debris in northern boreal forests. Forests 12: 624. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12050624 doi: 10.3390/f12050624
[9]	Ottmar RD (2014) Wildland fire emissions, carbon, and climate: Modeling fuel consumption. For Ecol Manage 317: 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.010 doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.010
[10]	Gooding JL (2023) Geologic perspective for carbon sequestration by woody biomass burial. Sci Tech Energ Transition 78: 17. https://doi.org/10.2516/stet/2023014 doi: 10.2516/stet/2023014
[11]	Pettersen RC (1984) The chemical composition of wood, In: Comstock MJ, Ed., The Chemistry of Solid Wood, Advances in Chemistry, American Chemical Society, 207: 57–126.
[12]	Kass A, Wangaard FF, Schroeder HA (1970) Chemical degradation of wood: The relationship between strength retention and pentosan content. Wood Fiber Sci 1: 31–39.
[13]	Rowell RM, Pettersen R, Tshabalala MA (2913) Cell wall chemistry. In: Rowell R, Ed., Handbook of Wood Chemistry and Wood Composites, 2nd. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 33–72.
[14]	Romero LM, Smith Ⅲ TJ, Fourqurean JW (2005) Changes in mass and nutrient content of wood during decomposition in a south Florida mangrove forest. J Ecol 93: 618–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.00970.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.00970.x
[15]	Ross RJ (2010) Wood Handbook—Wood as an Engineering Material, General Technical Report FPL-GTR-190. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 508. https://doi.org/10.2737/FPL-GTR-190
[16]	Álvarez C, Reyes-Sosa FM, Díez B (2016) Enzymatic hydrolysis of biomass from wood. Microb Biotechnol 9: 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12346 doi: 10.1111/1751-7915.12346
[17]	Machmudah S, Wahyudiono, Kanda H, et al. (2017) Hydrolysis of biopolymers in Near-Critical and Subcritical Water. Water Extr Bioact Compd 69–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809380-1.00003-6 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-809380-1.00003-6
[18]	Stokland JN, Siitonen J, Jonsson BG (2012) 2-Wood decomposition. Biodiversity in Dead Wood, Cambridge University Press, 10–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139025843.003
[19]	Hu Y, Yesilonis I, Szlavecz K (2021) Microbial and environmental controls on wood decomposition in deciduous forests of different ages. Appl Soil Ecol 166: 103986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2021.103986 doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2021.103986
[20]	Blanchette RA (2000) A review of microbial deterioration found in archaeological wood from different environments. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 46: 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-8305(00)00077-9 doi: 10.1016/S0964-8305(00)00077-9
[21]	Björdal CG, Daniel G, Nilsson T (2000) Depth of burial, an important factor in controlling bacterial decay of waterlogged archaeological poles. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 45: 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-8305(00)00035-4 doi: 10.1016/S0964-8305(00)00035-4
[22]	Otto A, Simoneit BRT (2002) Biomarkers of Holocene buried conifer logs from Bella Coola and north Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Org Geochem 33: 1241–1251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-6380(02)00139-0 doi: 10.1016/S0146-6380(02)00139-0
[23]	Pregitzer KS, Reed DD, Bornhorst TJ, et al. (2000) A buried spruce forest provides evidence at the stand and landscape scale for the effects of environment on vegetation at the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary. J Ecol 88: 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2000.00432.x doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.2000.00432.x
[24]	Meyers PA, Leenheer MJ, Bourbonniere RA (1995) Diagenesis of vascular plant organic matter components during burial in lake sediments. Aquat Geochem 1: 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01025230 doi: 10.1007/BF01025230
[25]	Schnell G, Schaeffer P, Tardivon H, et al. (2014) Contrasting diagenetic pathways of higher plant triterpenoids in buried wood as a function of tree species. Org Geochem 66: 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orggeochem.2013.11.001 doi: 10.1016/j.orggeochem.2013.11.001
[26]	Zeng N, Zhao X, Poisson G, et al. (2024) 3775-year-old wood burial supports "wood vaulting" as a durable carbon removal method. Science 385: 1454–1459. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adm8133 doi: 10.1126/science.adm8133
[27]	Hedges JI, Cowie GL, Ertel JR, et al. (1985) Degradation of carbohydrates and lignins in buried woods. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 49: 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(85)90165-6 doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(85)90165-6
[28]	Hudspith VA, Scott AC, Wilson CJN, et al. (2010) Charring of woods by volcanic processes: An example from the Taupo ignimbrite, New Zealand. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 291: 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2009.06.036 doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2009.06.036
[29]	Attalla MI, Serra RG, Vassollo AM, et al. (1988) Structure of ancient buried wood from Phyllocladus trichomanoides. Org Geochem 12: 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6380(88)90261-6 doi: 10.1016/0146-6380(88)90261-6
[30]	Scholey JM (2013) Compare and contrast the reaction coordinate diagrams for chemical reactions and cytoskeletal force generators. Mol Biol Cell 24: 433–439. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.e12-07-0545 doi: 10.1091/mbc.e12-07-0545
[31]	Huang Y, Wang H, Zhang X, et al. (2022) CO₂ pyrolysis kinetics and characteristics of lignin-rich hydrolysis residue produced from a tandem process of steam-stripping and acid hydrolysis. Fuel 316: 123361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123361 doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123361
[32]	Lu X, Dai P, Zhu X, et al. (2020) Thermal behavior and kinetics of enzymatic hydrolysis lignin modified products. Thermochim Acta 688: 178593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2020.178593 doi: 10.1016/j.tca.2020.178593
[33]	Paksung N, Pfersich J, Arauzo PJ, et al. (2020) Structural effects of cellulose on hydrolysis and carbonization behavior during hydrothermal treatment. ACS Omega 5: 12210–12223. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.0c00737 doi: 10.1021/acsomega.0c00737
[34]	Ye Z, Berson RE (2014) Factors affecting cellulose hydrolysis based on inactivation of adsorbed enzymes. Bioresour Technol 167: 582–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.06.070 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.06.070
[35]	Yuan Q, Liu S, Ma MG, et al. (2021) The kinetics studies on hydrolysis of hemicellulose. Front Chem 9: 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2021.781291 doi: 10.3389/fchem.2021.781291
[36]	Padil P, Dharma Putra M, Hidayat M, et al. (2023) Mechanism and kinetic model of microalgal enzymatic hydrolysis for prospective bioethanol conversion. RSC Adv 13: 21403–21413. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RA01556D doi: 10.1039/D3RA01556D
[37]	Delbecq F, Wang Y, Muralidhara A, et al. (2018) Hydrolysis of hemicellulose and derivatives—A review of recent advances in the production of furfural. Front Chem 6: 29. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2018.00146 doi: 10.3389/fchem.2018.00146
[38]	Cheméo, online database of chemical properties, Céondo GmbH. Available from: https://www.chemeo.com/.
[39]	Jiang W, Han G, Zhou C, et al. (2017) The degradation of lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose in kenaf bast under different pressures using steam explosion treatment. J Wood Chem Technol 37: 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773813.2017.1303514 doi: 10.1080/02773813.2017.1303514
[40]	Milke M, Fang Y, Stephen John S (2010) Anaerobic biodegradability of wood: a preliminary review, Water New Zealand Annual Conference, 4. Available from: https://www.waternz.org.nz/Article?Action = View & Article_id = 779.
[41]	Wagman DD, Evans WH, Parker VB, et al. (1982) The NBS tables of chemical thermodynamic properties: Selected values for inorganic and C1 and C2 organic substances in SI units. J Phys Chem Ref Data 11: 407. Available from: https://srd.nist.gov/JPCRD/jpcrdS2Vol11.pdf.
[42]	PubChem, online database of chemical properties, U.S. National Library of Medicine. Available from: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.
[43]	Manrique R, Denson M, Afrin A, et al. (2025) Chapter 10—Estimation of thermodynamic properties. In: Garcia-Perez M, Chejne-Janna F, Eds., Thermochemical Conversion of Lignocellulosic Materials: Theory, Design, and Applications for the Future, 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-95551-5.00010-1
[44]	Ioelovich M (2024) Chemical thermodynamics of biomass, cellulose, and cellulose derivatives: A review. World J Adv Res Rev 24: 1295–1338. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.24.1.3145 doi: 10.30574/wjarr.2024.24.1.3145
[45]	Šivec R, Grilc M, Huš M, et al. (2019) Multiscale Modeling of (Hemi)cellulose Hydrolysis and Cascade Hydrotreatment of 5-Hydroxymethylfurfural, Furfural, and Levulinic Acid. Ind Eng Chem Res 58: 16018–16032. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b00898 doi: 10.1021/acs.iecr.9b00898
[46]	Wang Y, Wang H, Yan C, et al. (2025) Thermodynamics insights of lignin dissolution in deep eutectic solvents. Int J Biol Macromol 300: 140224 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.140224 doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.140224
[47]	Wang X, Barlaz MA (2015) Decomposition and carbon storage of hardwood and softwood branches in laboratory-scale landfills. Sci Total Environ 557–558: 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.091 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.091
[48]	Embacher J, Zeilinger S, Kirchmair M, et al. (2023) Wood decay fungi and their bacterial interaction partners in the built environment—A systematic review on fungal bacteria interactions in dead wood and timber. Fungal Biol Rev 45: 100305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbr.2022.100305 doi: 10.1016/j.fbr.2022.100305
[49]	Pioli S, Clagnan E, Chowdhury AA, et al. (2023) Structural and functional microbial diversity in deadwood respond to decomposition dynamics. Environ Microbiol 25: 2351–2367. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.16459 doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.16459
[50]	Huang X, Liu X, Xue Y, et al. (2022) Methane production by facultative anaerobic wood-rot fungi via a new halomethane-dependent pathway. Microbiol Spectrum 10: e01700–22. https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01700-22 doi: 10.1128/spectrum.01700-22
[51]	Scheffer TC (1986) O₂ requirements for growth and survival of wood-decaying and sapwood-staining fungi. Can J Bot 64: 1957–1963. https://doi.org/10.1139/b86-259 doi: 10.1139/b86-259
[52]	Loesche WJ (1969) Oxygen sensitivity of various anaerobic bacteria. Appl Microbiol 18: 723–727. https://doi.org/10.1128/am.18.5.723-727.1969 doi: 10.1128/am.18.5.723-727.1969
[53]	Tholen A, Pester M, Brune B (2007) Simultaneous methanogenesis and oxygen reduction by Methanobrevibacter cuticularis at low oxygen fluxes. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 62: 303–312.
[54]	Yablonovitch E, Harry W, Deckman HW (2023) Scalable, economical, and stable sequestration of agricultural fixed carbon. PNAS 120: e2217695120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2217695120 doi: 10.1073/pnas.2217695120
[55]	Micales JA, Skog KE (1997) The decomposition of forest products in landfills. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 39: 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-8305(97)83389-6 doi: 10.1016/S0964-8305(97)83389-6
[56]	Laiho R, Prescott CE (2004) Decay and nutrient dynamics of coarse woody debris in northern coniferous forests: a synthesis, Can J For Res 34: 763–777. https://doi.org/10.1139/x03-241 doi: 10.1139/x03-241
[57]	Amelse JA, Behrens PK (2022) Sequestering biomass for natural, carbon efficient, and low-cost direct air capture of carbon dioxide. Int J Earth Environ Sci 7: 194. https://doi.org/10.15344/2456-351X/2022/194 doi: 10.15344/2456-351X/2022/194
[58]	IPCC, Chapter 3—Solid waste disposal, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006,151. Available from: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/.
[59]	IPCC, Chapter 3—Solid waste disposal, Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. 2019. Available from: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/index.html.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2026 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)