Items

• 

  A marginal abatement cost curve for climate change mitigation by additional carbon storage in French agricultural land

  Following the Paris agreement in 2015, the European Union (EU) set a carbon neutrality objective by 2050, and so did France. The French agricultural sector can contribute as a carbon sink through carbon storage in biomass and soil, in addition to reducing GHG emissions. The objective of this study is to quantitatively assess the additional storage potential and cost of a set of eight carbon-storing practices. The impacts of these agricultural practices on soil organic carbon storage and crop production are assessed at a very fine spatial scale, using crop and grassland models. The associated area base, GHG budget, and implementation costs are assessed and aggregated at the region level. The economic model BANCO uses this information to derive the marginal abatement cost curve for France and identify the combination of carbon storing practices that minimizes the total cost of achieving a given national net GHG mitigation target. We find that a substantial amount of carbon, 36.2 to 52.9 MtCO2e yr−1, can be stored in soil and biomass for reasonable carbon prices of 55 and 250 € tCO2e−1, respectively (corresponding to current and 2030 French carbon value for climate action), mainly by developing agroforestry and hedges, generalising cover crops, and introducing or extending temporary grasslands in crop sequences. This finding questions the 3–5 times lower target of 10 MtCO2e.yr−1 retained for the agricultural carbon sink by the French climate neutrality strategy. Overall, this would decrease total French GHG emissions by 9.2–13.8%, respectively (reference year 2019).
• 

  Carbon for soils, not soils for carbon

  The role of soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration as a ‘win-win’ solution to both climate change and food insecurity receives an increasing promotion. The opportunity may be too good to be missed! Yet the tremendous complexity of the two issues at stake calls for a detailed and nuanced examination of any potential solution, no matter how appealing. Here, we critically re-examine the benefits of global SOC sequestration strategies on both climate change mitigation and food production. While estimated contributions of SOC sequestration to climate change vary, almost none take SOC saturation into account. Here, we show that including saturation in estimations decreases any potential contribution of SOC sequestration to climate change mitigation by 53%–81% towards 2100. In addition, reviewing more than 21 meta-analyses, we found that observed yield effects of increasing SOC are inconsistent, ranging from negative to neutral to positive. We find that the promise of a win-win outcome is confirmed only when specific land management practices are applied under specific conditions. Therefore, we argue that the existing knowledge base does not justify the current trend to set global agendas focusing first and foremost on SOC sequestration. Away from climate-smart soils, we need a shift towards soil-smart agriculture, adaptative and adapted to each local context, and where multiple soil functions are quantified concurrently. Only such comprehensive assessments will allow synergies for land sustainability to be maximised and agronomic requirements for food security to be fulfilled. This implies moving away from global targets for SOC in agricultural soils. SOC sequestration may occur along this pathway and contribute to climate change mitigation and should be regarded as a co-benefit.
• 

  Carbon storage in soils

  Soils are a pivotal component in the global carbon cycle, while carbon storage in soils is a natural phenomenon involving organic carbon. Maintaining or increasing soil carbon levels is beneficial for many ecosystem services. Soil carbon is also a soil condition indicator and a key focus of several Sustainable Development Goals. This chapter describes the forms of carbon in soils, the quantification of carbon stocks and storage, the processes underlying the heterogeneous distribution of carbon stocks across the planet and their dynamics, land-use changes and practices that affect soil carbon stocks, as well as the socioeconomic benefits of soil carbon storage.
• 

  Storage of soil carbon is not sequestration: Straightforward graphical visualization of their basic differences

  Over the last few years, in the literature on the incorporation of crop residues in agricultural fields to mitigate climate change, there has been a growing tendency to no longer distinguish between the storage and the sequestration of organic carbon in soils. Applying, apparently for the first time, a simple “back-of-the-envelope” calculation to available mineralization kinetics data, we show graphically that there are fundamental differences, both quantitatively and qualitatively, between the two concepts of storage and sequestration. To avoid confusion, they should therefore never be used interchangeably, especially when addressing farmers and policy makers. Several simplifying assumptions made in the calculations, and about which a considerable lack of understanding persists, mean that at this stage, the graphical visualization we obtained is likely to still be optimistic in terms of the already low (10%) efficacy of sequestering carbon in soils. Several research avenues are outlined to deepen our grasp of the processes involved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
• 

  The misconception of soil organic carbon sequestration notion: when do we achieve climate benefit?

  Soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration is a key function of natural and semi-natural ecosystems. Restoring this property in terrestrial ecosystems has become central to the EU's climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. However, SOC sequestration is a widely misunderstood concept. The different methodological approaches used to investigate and compare SOC stock under sustainable agricultural practices play a key role in reinforcing misconceptions about this complex process. This commentary paper aims not only to provide a clear definition of SOC sequestration, but also to interpret the results that can be obtained for SOC stock change estimation using the SOC stock difference and the pair comparison methods, as well as to identify the soil carbon-related processes that achieve climate mitigation. SOC sequestration can be defined as the progressive increase in a site's SOC stock compared to pre-intervention via a net depletion and transfer of atmospheric CO2 into the soil, where it is retained as soil organic matter (SOM), by plants, plant residues or other organic solids such as the material derived from the organic fraction of farming solid waste, which can be used as a fertilizer (e.g., manure, compost, biochar, digestate), and that is produced or derived from that land-unit. To date the most appropriate way to determine if a land unit's soil is a sink or rather a source of atmospheric CO2 is to implement the SOC stock difference method, provided the non-occurrence of carbon exchange between ecosystems.
• 

  A marginal abatement cost curve for climate change mitigation by additional carbon storage in French agricultural land

  Following the Paris agreement in 2015, the European Union (EU) set a carbon neutrality objective by 2050, and so did France. The French agricultural sector can contribute as a carbon sink through carbon storage in biomass and soil, in addition to reducing GHG emissions. The objective of this study is to quantitatively assess the additional storage potential and cost of a set of eight carbon-storing practices. The impacts of these agricultural practices on soil organic carbon storage and crop production are assessed at a very fine spatial scale, using crop and grassland models. The associated area base, GHG budget, and implementation costs are assessed and aggregated at the region level. The economic model BANCO uses this information to derive the marginal abatement cost curve for France and identify the combination of carbon storing practices that minimizes the total cost of achieving a given national net GHG mitigation target. We find that a substantial amount of carbon, 36.2 to 52.9 MtCO2e yr−1, can be stored in soil and biomass for reasonable carbon prices of 55 and 250 € tCO2e−1, respectively (corresponding to current and 2030 French carbon value for climate action), mainly by developing agroforestry and hedges, generalising cover crops, and introducing or extending temporary grasslands in crop sequences. This finding questions the 3–5 times lower target of 10 MtCO2e.yr−1 retained for the agricultural carbon sink by the French climate neutrality strategy. Overall, this would decrease total French GHG emissions by 9.2–13.8%, respectively (reference year 2019).
• 

  Soil carbon sequestration for climate change mitigation: Mineralization kinetics of organic inputs as an overlooked limitation

  Over the last few years, the question of whether soil carbon sequestration could contribute significantly to climate change mitigation has been the object of numerous debates. All of these debates so far appear to have entirely overlooked a crucial aspect of the question. It concerns the short-term mineralization kinetics of fresh organic matter added to soils, which is occasionally alluded to in the literature, but is almost always subsumed in a broader modelling context. In the present article, we first summarise what is currently known about the kinetics of mineralization of plant residues added to soils, and about its modelling in the long run. We then argue that in the short run, this microbially-mediated process has important practical consequences that cannot be ignored. Specifically, since at least 90% of plant residues added to soils to increase their carbon content over the long term are mineralized relatively rapidly and are released as CO2 to the atmosphere, farmers would have to apply to their fields 10 times more organic carbon annually than what they would eventually expect to sequester. Over time, because of a well-known sink saturation effect, the multiplier may even rise significantly above 10, up to a point when no net carbon sequestration takes place any longer. The requirement to add many times more carbon than what one aims to sequester makes it practically impossible to add sufficient amounts of crop residues to soils to have a lasting, non-negligible effect on climate change. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that raising the organic matter content of soils is desirable for other reasons, in particular guaranteeing that soils will be able to keep fulfilling essential functions and services in spite of fast-changing environmental conditions. Highlights Attempts to promote soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change have so far ignored the short-term effects of the mineralization of plant residues added to soils. Only about 10%, at most, of added plan residues remain in soils after mineralization by soil organisms. To have a significant effect on climate change, farmers would need to add impractically large amounts of plant residues, requiring unrealistic nitrogen inputs. Therefore, rather than as a mitigation strategy, farmers should aim to increase the carbon content of soils to make them resilient to climate change.
• 

  A global overview of studies about land management, land-use change, and climate change effects on soil organic carbon

  Major drivers of gains or losses in soil organic carbon (SOC) include land management, land-use change, and climate change. Thousands of original studies have focused on these drivers of SOC change and are now compiled in a growing number of meta-analyses. To critically assess the research efforts in this domain, we retrieved and characterized 192 meta-analyses of SOC stocks or concentrations. These meta-analyses comprise more than 13,200 original studies conducted from 1910 to 2020 in 150 countries. First, we show that, despite a growing number of studies over time, the geographical coverage of studies is limited. For example, the effect of land management, land-use change, and climate change on SOC has been only occasionally studied in North and Central Africa, and in the Middle East and Central Asia. Second, the meta-analyses investigated a limited number of land management practices, mostly mineral fertilization, organic amendments, and tillage. Third, the meta-analyses demonstrated relatively low quality and transparency. Lastly, we discuss the mismatch between the increasing number of studies and the need for more local, reusable, and diversified knowledge on how to preserve high SOC stocks or restore depleted SOC stocks.
• 

  Reducing losses but failing to sequester carbon in soils – the case of Conservation Agriculture and Integrated Soil Fertility Management in the humid tropical agro-ecosystem of Western Kenya

  Agriculture is a global contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, causing climate change. Soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration is seen as a pathway to climate change mitigation. But, long-term data on the actual contribution of tropical soils to SOC sequestration are largely absent. To contribute to filling this knowledge gap, we measured SOC in the top 15cm over 12 years in two agronomic long-term trials in Western Kenya. These trials include various levels – from absence to full adoption – of two widely promoted sustainable agricultural management practices: Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM; i.e. improved varieties, mineral fertilizer and organic matter/manure incorporation) and Conservation Agriculture (CA; improved varieties, mineral fertilizer, zero-tillage and crop residues retention). None of the tested ISFM and CA treatments turned out successful in sequestering SOC long-term. Instead, SOC decreased significantly over time in the vast majority of treatments. Expressed as annual averages, losses ranged between 0.11 and 0.37tCha−1 yr−1 in the CA long-term trial and 0.21 and 0.96tCha−1 yr−1 in the ISFM long-term trial. Long-term application of mineral N and P fertilizer did not mitigate SOC losses in both trials. Adopting zero-tillage and residue retention alone (as part of CA) could avoid SOC losses of on average 0.13tCha−1 yr−1, while this was 0.26tCha−1 yr−1 in response to mere inclusion of manure as part of ISFM. However, cross-site comparison disclosed that initial SOC levels of the two trials were different, probably as a result of varying land use history. Such initial soil status was responsible for the bulk of the SOC losses and less so the various tested agronomic management practices. This means, while ISFM and CA in the humid tropical agro-ecosystem of Western Kenya contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing SOC losses, they do not help offsetting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere.
• 

  Soil organic carbon sequestration in temperate agroforestry systems – A meta-analysis

  Soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration by improved agricultural practices is an acclaimed strategy to combat climate change. Nevertheless, the aim of increasing of SOC encounters limitations, e.g. with regards to permanence of carbon storage or leakage effects in food production. Agroforestry systems (AFS) are a promising land use option that is able to sequester substantial amounts of SOC while addressing these challenges. With a focus on temperate climate zones worldwide, available information on SOC in AFS was reviewed to determine their SOC sequestration potential and respective controlling factors. From a total of 61 observations, SOC sequestration rates in soils of AFS were derived for alley cropping systems (n = 25), hedgerows (n = 26) and silvopastoral systems (n = 10). The results showed that AFS have a potential for substantial SOC sequestration in temperate climates. SOC stocks were higher in the topsoil (0–20 cm) than in the control in more than 70% of the observations, and higher within the subsoil (20–40 cm) for 81% of all observations, albeit large variation in the data. The mean SOC sequestration rates were slightly higher at 0–20 cm (0.21 ± 0.79 t ha-1 yr-1) compared to 20–40 cm soil depth (0.15 ± 0.26 t ha-1 yr-1). Hedgerows revealed highest SOC sequestration rates in topsoils and subsoils (0.32 ± 0.26 and 0.28 ± 0.15 t ha-1 yr-1, respectively), followed by alley cropping systems (0.26 ± 1.15 and 0.23 ± 0.25 t ha-1 yr-1) and silvopastoral systems showing a slight mean SOC loss (−0.17 ± 0.50 and −0.03 ± 0.26 t ha-1 yr-1). Moreover, SOC sequestration rates tended to be higher for AFS with broadleaf tree species compared to coniferous species. We conclude that temperate AFS sequester significant amounts of SOC in topsoils and subsoils and represent one of the most promising agricultural measures for climate change mitigation and adaption.
• 

  Soil organic carbon sequestration in temperate agroforestry systems – A meta-analysis

  Soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration by improved agricultural practices is an acclaimed strategy to combat climate change. Nevertheless, the aim of increasing of SOC encounters limitations, e.g. with regards to permanence of carbon storage or leakage effects in food production. Agroforestry systems (AFS) are a promising land use option that is able to sequester substantial amounts of SOC while addressing these challenges. With a focus on temperate climate zones worldwide, available information on SOC in AFS was reviewed to determine their SOC sequestration potential and respective controlling factors. From a total of 61 observations, SOC sequestration rates in soils of AFS were derived for alley cropping systems (n = 25), hedgerows (n = 26) and silvopastoral systems (n = 10). The results showed that AFS have a potential for substantial SOC sequestration in temperate climates. SOC stocks were higher in the topsoil (0–20 cm) than in the control in more than 70% of the observations, and higher within the subsoil (20–40 cm) for 81% of all observations, albeit large variation in the data. The mean SOC sequestration rates were slightly higher at 0–20 cm (0.21 ± 0.79 t ha-1 yr-1) compared to 20–40 cm soil depth (0.15 ± 0.26 t ha-1 yr-1). Hedgerows revealed highest SOC sequestration rates in topsoils and subsoils (0.32 ± 0.26 and 0.28 ± 0.15 t ha-1 yr-1, respectively), followed by alley cropping systems (0.26 ± 1.15 and 0.23 ± 0.25 t ha-1 yr-1) and silvopastoral systems showing a slight mean SOC loss (−0.17 ± 0.50 and −0.03 ± 0.26 t ha-1 yr-1). Moreover, SOC sequestration rates tended to be higher for AFS with broadleaf tree species compared to coniferous species. We conclude that temperate AFS sequester significant amounts of SOC in topsoils and subsoils and represent one of the most promising agricultural measures for climate change mitigation and adaption.
• 

  Carbon sequestration potential through conservation agriculture in Africa has been largely overestimated: Comment on: “Meta-analysis on carbon sequestration through conservation agriculture in Africa”

  Soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration depends on several factors,including land use, pedo-climatic conditions, topographic position andthe initial SOC stock (Post and Kwon, 2000; Minasny et al., 2017). Atthe plot scale, a positive SOC balance is created by increasing the inputof organic matter to the soil to exceed the carbon (C) losses by miner-alization, leaching and erosion or by decreasing the rate of SOC de-composition. In Africa, agricultural soils are generally known to havepotential as a C sink due to previous SOC depletion (Vågen et al., 2005;Swanepoel et al., 2016). Two widely promoted crop managementpractices to store C in agricultural soils are conservation agriculture(CA) and agroforestry. Both practices can increase SOC through in-creased C inputs from higher biomass productivity and reduced C losses(through soil cover and reduced soil tillage), leading to a net transfer ofC from the atmosphere to the soil, thus contributing to the mitigation ofclimate change (Smith et al., 2005;Powlson et al., 2011; Griscom et al.,2017).