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]

Climate change mitigation efforts to achieve net-zero emissions require not only decreasing current greenhouse gas emissions, but also the deployment of negative emissions technologies. Soil organic carbon sequestration in agricultural lands is one such negative emissions strategy, currently being incentivized predominantly through voluntary carbon offset markets. Through semi-structured interviews, we assess both conventional and organic farmer perspectives on soil carbon offset programs that have been created in the United States since 2017. The perspectives of farmers both participating and not participating in agricultural soil carbon markets were similar and consistent. Farmers in both groups expressed concerns about the convoluted, burdensome and unpredictable nature of receiving offset credits and emphasized that they were implementing practices for their own business interests and sustainability concerns, not the financial incentive of the generation of carbon credits. Based on our research, carbon offset credit payments for agricultural soil carbon sequestration are largely reaching farmers who were already implementing these beneficial practices or were already strongly interested in implementing these practices, and the payments for the offset credits are seen as a 'gravy on top', suggesting that these offset markets face strong challenges of ensuring true additionality essential to effective climate mitigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article "Climate change mitigation through soil carbon sequestration in working lands: A reality check" questions the validity and realism of claims made by Almaraz et al. regarding the potential magnitude of soil carbon sequestration (SCS) in agricultural soils. The authors argue that Almaraz et al. overestimate the availability of organic matter for compost and biochar, inaccurately interpret carbon sequestration rates, and make premature assumptions about the applicability of enhanced rock weathering. They emphasize the need for realistic evaluations of the limitations and trade-offs of SCS practices and caution against overly optimistic estimates that can mislead policymakers. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. [Extracted from the article]

Sequestering carbon into agricultural soils is considered as a means of mitigating climate change. We used agronomic soil test results representing c. 95% of the farmed land area in Finland to estimate the potential of the uppermost 15 cm soil layer of mineral agricultural soils to sequester organic carbon (OC) and to contribute to the mitigation of climate change. The estimation of the maximum capacity of mineral matter to protect OC in stable mineral-associated form was based on the theory that clay and fine-sized (fines = clay + silt) particles have a limited capacity to protect OC. In addition, we used the clay/OC and fines/OC ratios to identify areas with a risk of erosion and reduced productivity, thus indicating priority areas potentially benefitting from the increased soil OC contents. We found that 32–40% of the mineral agricultural soils in Finland have the potential to further accumulate mineral-associated OC (MOC), while in the majority of soils, the current OC stock in the uppermost 15 cm exceeded the capacity of mineral matter to protect OC. The nationwide soil OC sequestration potential of the uppermost 15 cm in mineral agricultural soils ranged between 0.21 and 0.26 Tg, which corresponds to less than 2% of annual greenhouse gas emissions in Finland. The fields with the highest potential for SOC accrual were found in the southern and southwestern parts of the country, including some of the most intensively cultivated high-clay soils. Although the nationwide potential for additional OC sequestration was estimated to be relatively small, the current OC storage in Finnish arable mineral soils (0-15 cm) is large, 128 Tg. Farming practices enabling maximum OC input into the soil play an important role as a tool for mitigating the loss of carbon from high-OC soils in the changing climate. Furthermore, especially in high-clay areas with potential for MOC accrual, efforts to increase soil OC could help improve soil structural stability and therefore reduce erosion and the loss of nutrients to the aquatic environments. [Display omitted] • We estimated the potential of mineral arable soils for organic carbon sequestration • Nationwide carbon sequestration potential in the uppermost soil layer was 0.21–0.26 Tg • Less than 40% of mineral arable soils have potential to increase stable organic carbon • Greatest potential lies in the intensively cultivated high-clay soils • Maintenance of current significant carbon stock (128 Tg, 0–15 cm) should be secured [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]