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]

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]

There is growing international interest in better managing soils to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) content to contribute to climate change mitigation, to enhance resilience to climate change and to underpin food security, through initiatives such as international '4p1000' initiative and the FAO's Global assessment of SOC sequestration potential (GSOCseq) programme. Since SOC content of soils cannot be easily measured, a key barrier to implementing programmes to increase SOC at large scale, is the need for credible and reliable measurement/monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) platforms, both for national reporting and for emissions trading. Without such platforms, investments could be considered risky. In this paper, we review methods and challenges of measuring SOC change directly in soils, before examining some recent novel developments that show promise for quantifying SOC. We describe how repeat soil surveys are used to estimate changes in SOC over time, and how long‐term experiments and space‐for‐time substitution sites can serve as sources of knowledge and can be used to test models, and as potential benchmark sites in global frameworks to estimate SOC change. We briefly consider models that can be used to simulate and project change in SOC and examine the MRV platforms for SOC change already in use in various countries/regions. In the final section, we bring together the various components described in this review, to describe a new vision for a global framework for MRV of SOC change, to support national and international initiatives seeking to effect change in the way we manage our soils. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We evaluated the "4 per 1000" initiative for increasing soil organic carbon (SOC) by analysing rates of SOC increase in treatments in 16 long-term experiments in southeast United Kingdom. The initiative sets a goal for SOC stock to increase by 4& per year in the 0-40 cm soil depth, continued over 20 years. Our experiments, on three soil types, provided 114 treatment comparisons over 7-157 years. Treatments included organic additions (incorporated by inversion ploughing), N fertilizers, introducing pasture leys into continuous arable systems, and converting arable land to woodland. In 65% of cases, SOC increases occurred at >7% per year in the 0-23 cm depth, approximately equivalent to 4& per year in the 0-40 cm depth. In the two longest running experiments (>150 years), annual farmyard manure (FYM) applications at 35 t fresh material per hectare (equivalent to approx. 3.2 t organic C/ha/year) gave SOC increases of 18% and 43% per year in the 23 cm depth during the first 20 years. Increases exceeding 7% per year continued for 40-60 years. In other experiments, with FYM applied at lower rates or not every year, there were increases of 3%-8% per year over several decades. Other treatments gave increases between zero and 19& per year over various periods. We conclude that there are severe limitations to achieving the "4 per 1000" goal in practical agriculture over large areas. The reasons include (1) farmers not having the necessary resources (e.g. insufficient manure); (2) some, though not all, practices favouring SOC already widely adopted; (3) practices uneconomic for farmers--potentially overcome by changes in regulations or subsidies; (4) practices undesirable for global food security. We suggest it is more realistic to promote practices for increasing SOC based on improving soil quality and functioning as small increases can have disproportionately large beneficial impacts, though not necessarily translating into increased crop yield. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]