Search

Agriculture contributes to global climate change by producing 20–25% of greenhouse gases (GHGs). CO 2 is released from deforestation and land conversion, methane from rice paddy fields, and nitrous oxides from overfertilization. An increasing world population requires a change in the agro food systems, including a reduction in chemical fertilizers and pesticides as well as the production and access to food. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have created a global climate crisis which requires immediate interventions to mitigate the negative effects on all aspects of life on this planet. As current agriculture and land use contributes up to 25% of total GHG emissions, plant scientists take center stage in finding possible solutions for a transition to sustainable agriculture and land use. In this article, the PlantACT! (Plants for climate ACTion!) initiative of plant scientists lays out a road map of how and in which areas plant scientists can contribute to finding immediate, mid-term, and long-term solutions, and what changes are necessary to implement these solutions at the personal, institutional, and funding levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pastoral farming systems have always adapted to the seasonal availability of forage resources and climate variability by moving animals. However, the role of animal mobility as a possible mitigating strategy in response to climate change has not been clearly documented. To understand this role, we investigated (i) the major methodological challenges linked to the diversity of grazing areas and other forage resources exploited by these systems and enteric emissions of methane; (ii) the impacts of grazing practices (carbon sequestration/emission) on soil and biomass carbon fluxes. We developed an approach based on two existing models (OSTRAL: Outil de Simulation du TRoupeau ovin ALlaitant and CASA: Carnegie Ames Stanford Approach) that we adapted and used in combination. This approach was applied to three French Mediterranean sheep and crop farming systems with different degrees of flock mobility (sedentary, single transhumance and double transhumance). The preliminary results produced by the whole farm model OSTRAL showed that two systems (sedentary and double transhumance) causing low carbon emissions. In the sedentary system, higher animal productivity offsets the increase in GHG emissions (in CO 2 eq) caused by feed production. In the pastoral system, grazing reduced total GHG emissions (in CO 2 eq). The CASA model proved to be useful to simulate the carbon balance under dynamic land cover in natural environments, whether used for grazing or not. This model can help assess the impact of grazing practices and carbon fluxes in systems linked to natural environments. The results of the first application showed that seasonal mobility of livestock increases the contribution of rangeland to feeding systems and improves the non-renewable energy balance of the system. It is thus extremely important to include the specificities of animals grazing in rangelands outside the structural limits of the farm when evaluating GHG emissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Pricing greenhouse gas emissions is a burgeoning and possibly lucrative financial means for climate change mitigation. Emissions pricing is being used to fund emissions-abatement technologies and to modify land management to improve carbon sequestration and retention. Here we discuss the principal land-management options under existing and realistic future emissions-price legislation in Australia, and examine them with respect to their anticipated direct and indirect effects on biodiversity. The main ways in which emissions price-driven changes to land management can affect biodiversity are through policies and practices for (1) environmental plantings for carbon sequestration, (2) native regrowth, (3) fire management, (4) forestry, (5) agricultural practices (including cropping and grazing), and (6) feral animal control. While most land-management options available to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions offer clear advantages to increase the viability of native biodiversity, we describe several caveats regarding potentially negative outcomes, and outline components that need to be considered if biodiversity is also to benefit from the new carbon economy. Carbon plantings will only have real biodiversity value if they comprise appropriate native tree species and provide suitable habitats and resources for valued fauna. Such plantings also risk severely altering local hydrology and reducing water availability. Management of regrowth post-agricultural abandonment requires setting appropriate baselines and allowing for thinning in certain circumstances, and improvements to forestry rotation lengths would likely increase carbon-retention capacity and biodiversity value. Prescribed burning to reduce the frequency of high-intensity wildfires in northern Australia is being used as a tool to increase carbon retention. Fire management in southern Australia is not readily amenable for maximising carbon storage potential, but will become increasingly important for biodiversity conservation as the climate warms. Carbon price-based modifications to agriculture that would benefit biodiversity include reductions in tillage frequency and livestock densities, reductions in fertiliser use, and retention and regeneration of native shrubs; however, anticipated shifts to exotic perennial grass species such as buffel grass and kikuyu could have net negative implications for native biodiversity. Finally, it is unlikely that major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions arising from feral animal control are possible, even though reduced densities of feral herbivores will benefit Australian biodiversity greatly. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]