The study highlights the critical mechanistic data supporting the ecological restoration advantages of biochar (BC) and its role in sustainable environmental management. Recognizing the substantial influence of specific feedstock sources and pyrolysis parameters on BC efficacy, this research aims to address these gaps through an extensive investigation into the potential benefits of BC application in ecological restoration. The methodology involves a systematic exploration of effects of BC from latest literature on various aspects of agricultural sustainability, including its ability to support crop growth, improve nutrient bioavailability, facilitate co-composting, enhance consumption efficiency, and contribute to water quality restoration. The main results of the study reveal that BC usage results in a net negative carbon (C) footprint, mitigates heavy metal pollution, and enhances soil and ecosystem health. In bioenergy production, BC serves as a versatile resource for generating renewable energy, reducing waste, and facilitating C sequestration. Advanced BC techniques, such as tailored pyrolysis processes and activation methods, further enhance its effectiveness in ecosystem restoration and sustainable resource management. Furthermore, the research identifies deficiencies in current literature and proposes future research directions to advance understanding of BC application. Overall, the study underscores the importance of considering feedstock and pyrolysis variables in BC research and highlights the potential of BC to contribute to ecological sustainability. However, concerns regarding potential health implications for humans in agricultural contexts warrant further investigation and risk assessment to ensure safe and sustainable BC application. Graphical Abstract

The field experiment was performed in 2019–2021 at the Experimental Station of Vytautas Magnus University Agriculture Academy (54°52′ N, 23°49′ E). The soil of the experimental field was Endohipogleyic-Eutric Planasol. The studied factors were: Factor A—different nitrogen fertilizer rates: (1) 100 kg N ha⁻¹; (2) 140 kg N ha⁻¹; (3) 180 kg N ha⁻¹; Factor B—the use of urease inhibitors (UI) and biological preparations (BP): (1) urease inhibitors (UI) and biological preparations (BP) were not used; (2) Urease inhibitor (UI ATS)—ammonium thiosulfate—[(NH₄)₂S₂O₃ 12-0-0-26S]; (3) Urease inhibitor (UI URN)—N-butyl-thiophosphorus triamide (NBPT) and N-propyl-thiophosphorus triamide (NPPT); (4) Biological preparation (BP HUM)—suspension of humic and fulvic acids; (5) Biological preparation (BP FIT)—Ascophyllum nodosum suspension. Our studies showed that the highest yield of maize grain (8.9–12.0 t ha⁻¹) was obtained by fertilizing with N180 and using the urease inhibitor ammonium thiosulfate (ATS). ATS significantly increased corn grain yield in all backgrounds of nitrogen fertilization. The investigated urease inhibitors and biologics had a higher and more significant (p < 0.05) effect on maize grain yield when fertilized with N₁₀₀ nitrogen. The increase in nitrogen fertilizer rates had an effect on maize grain yield, with the largest increase in yield being found in the increase in nitrogen rate from N₁₀₀ to N₁₄₀, and the increase in rate to N180 was less effective. The maximum mass of 1000 grains (323.5 g) was determined in 2019 by fertilization with N180 and use of the urease inhibitor UI URN. The urease inhibitor UI ATS was more effective when fertilized with lower rates of N₁₀₀ and N₁₄₀. Positive, moderate, strong and very strong, statistically significant correlations (r² = 0.48–0.91) were most often found between the latter indicators and nitrogen fertilizer rates throughout the study year. The largest amount of grain (497 units) in the cob was determined in 2019, using fertilization with N₁₄₀ and UI ATS, but no significant differences were found between the different fertilizer rates and the tested preparations. These results suggest that urease inhibitors and biologics can reduce dependence on nitrogen fertilizers and increase maize yield, a technology that should be practiced by maize growers.