Search

The term carbon (C) sequestration has not just become a buzzword but is something of a siren's call to scientific communicators and media outlets. Carbon sequestration is the removal of C from the atmosphere and the storage, for example, in soil. It has the potential to partially compensate for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and is, therefore, an important piece in the global climate change mitigation puzzle. However, the term C sequestration is often used misleadingly and, while likely unintentional, can lead to the perpetuation of biased conclusions and exaggerated expectations about its contribution to climate change mitigation efforts. Soils have considerable potential to take up C but many are also in a state of continuous loss. In such soils, measures to build up soil C may only lead to a reduction in C losses (C loss mitigation) rather than result in real C sequestration and negative emissions. In an examination of 100 recent peer‐reviewed papers on topics surrounding soil C, only 4% were found to have used the term C sequestration correctly. Furthermore, 13% of the papers equated C sequestration with C stocks. The review, further, revealed that measures leading to C sequestration will not always result in climate change mitigation when non‐CO2 greenhouse gases and leakage are taken into consideration. This paper highlights potential pitfalls when using the term C sequestration incorrectly and calls for accurate usage of this term going forward. Revised and new terms are suggested to distinguish clearly between C sequestration in soils, SOC loss mitigation, negative emissions, climate change mitigation, SOC storage, and SOC accrual to avoid miscommunication among scientists and stakeholder groups in future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policymakers and businesses in Southeast Asia are increasingly interested in using carbon markets to encourage adoption of regenerative agriculture practices by farmers. These practices are thought to mitigate climate change by reducing soil carbon loss and enhancing soil carbon sequestration. However, there is uncertainty in the ability of regenerative agriculture practices to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks of croplands. We reviewed 92 empirical studies that investigated the effects of 17 regenerative farming practices across 11 broad categories of crops on SOC stock or content in Southeast Asia. Our synthesis found supporting evidence for the use of organic amendments like biochar, compost, and manure, as well as cover cropping, crop rotation, and conservation tillage to increase SOC. However, studies for practices like addition of compost and manure reported increases in greenhouse gas emissions like methane (CH 4) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O), demonstrating that increases in SOC may be offset by increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Only a few studies measured both the changes in SOC stocks and greenhouse gas emissions and none of the studies completed full greenhouse gas inventories. Estimating the net impact of SOC gains and increase of greenhouse gas emissions will be necessary to understand the overall effect of practices like compost, manure and crop residue incorporation on net atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. If these practices are implemented for soil carbon projects, practitioners should anticipate increases in greenhouse gas emissions from soils and implement additional practices, such as alternate wetting and drying, to optimize the climate change mitigation effects of regenerative agriculture. We encourage future research on practices, such as agroforestry and changes in crop residue management, where there are few studies and little variation in experimental design and environmental conditions. Given the interest in scaling up regenerative agriculture through voluntary carbon markets to boost SOC stocks in croplands, policymakers and businesses can support research in this area by making field-collected data from their projects accessible to researchers to further the study of the impact of these practices across different abiotic conditions and soil managements. This data sharing would alleviate the paucity and improve the quality of empirical data on regenerative agricultural practices in Southeast Asian croplands, facilitate practice-specific meta-analyses, and help to optimize climate change mitigation effects of regenerative agriculture. • Regenerative agriculture practices can increase soil carbon in Southeast Asia. • These practices can also increase cropland greenhouse gas emissions like methane. • More empirical data is needed to quantify the practices' effects on soil carbon [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a careless use of terminology like “climate change mitigation” and “mitigate global warming” in scientific papers on no-tillage management in agriculture. This is because it has yet to be shown unequivocally that no-tillage can lead to carbon (C) sequestration let alone climate change mitigation. I briefly summarize evidence that shows that the claims of climate change mitigation through no-tillage agriculture are highly overstated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]