Characterising the biophysical, economic and social impacts of soil carbon sequestration as a greenhouse gas removal technology.
4 per mille
agriculture
greenhouse gas removal
negative emissions
soil carbon sequestration
soil organic carbon
Journal
Global change biology
ISSN: 1365-2486
Titre abrégé: Glob Chang Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9888746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
received:
24
08
2018
accepted:
21
08
2019
pubmed:
19
9
2019
medline:
20
3
2020
entrez:
19
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To limit warming to well below 2°C, most scenario projections rely on greenhouse gas removal technologies (GGRTs); one such GGRT uses soil carbon sequestration (SCS) in agricultural land. In addition to their role in mitigating climate change, SCS practices play a role in delivering agroecosystem resilience, climate change adaptability and food security. Environmental heterogeneity and differences in agricultural practices challenge the practical implementation of SCS, and our analysis addresses the associated knowledge gap. Previous assessments have focused on global potentials, but there is a need among policymakers to operationalise SCS. Here, we assess a range of practices already proposed to deliver SCS, and distil these into a subset of specific measures. We provide a multidisciplinary summary of the barriers and potential incentives towards practical implementation of these measures. First, we identify specific practices with potential for both a positive impact on SCS at farm level and an uptake rate compatible with global impact. These focus on: (a) optimising crop primary productivity (e.g. nutrient optimisation, pH management, irrigation); (b) reducing soil disturbance and managing soil physical properties (e.g. improved rotations, minimum till); (c) minimising deliberate removal of C or lateral transport via erosion processes (e.g. support measures, bare fallow reduction); (d) addition of C produced outside the system (e.g. organic manure amendments, biochar addition); (e) provision of additional C inputs within the cropping system (e.g. agroforestry, cover cropping). We then consider economic and non-cost barriers and incentives for land managers implementing these measures, along with the potential externalised impacts of implementation. This offers a framework and reference point for holistic assessment of the impacts of SCS. Finally, we summarise and discuss the ability of extant scientific approaches to quantify the technical potential and externalities of SCS measures, and the barriers and incentives to their implementation in global agricultural systems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31532049
doi: 10.1111/gcb.14844
pmc: PMC7079085
doi:
Substances chimiques
Greenhouse Gases
0
Soil
0
Carbon
7440-44-0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1085-1108Subventions
Organisme : Natural Environment Research Council
ID : NE/P019463/1
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Global Change Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Science. 2000 Jul 14;289(5477):284-8
pubmed: 10894773
Soil Use Manag. 2016 Sep;32(3):390-399
pubmed: 27708478
J Environ Manage. 2014 Feb 15;134:90-9
pubmed: 24468448
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013 May 27;368(1621):20130122
pubmed: 23713120
Eur J Soil Sci. 2017 May;68(3):305-316
pubmed: 28603450
Nature. 2012 Oct 11;490(7419):254-7
pubmed: 22932270
Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2018 Feb 1;253:62-81
pubmed: 29398743
Sci Total Environ. 2013 Oct 1;463-464:530-40
pubmed: 23831799
Glob Chang Biol. 2017 Aug;23(8):3382-3392
pubmed: 27966250
Environ Pollut. 2002;116(3):457-63
pubmed: 11822725
Sci Total Environ. 2014 Aug 15;490:921-33
pubmed: 24911772
Sci Rep. 2015 Dec 18;5:18496
pubmed: 26678303
Glob Chang Biol. 2019 Feb;25(2):386-389
pubmed: 30485613
J Environ Qual. 2008 May 02;37(3):880-8
pubmed: 18453410
J Environ Manage. 2011 Mar;92(3):967-73
pubmed: 21126818
Nat Plants. 2018 Mar;4(3):138-147
pubmed: 29459727
Biol Lett. 2017 Apr;13(4):
pubmed: 28381635
Nat Commun. 2010 Aug 10;1:56
pubmed: 20975722
Sci Adv. 2018 Nov 14;4(11):eaau3523
pubmed: 30443596
Environ Int. 2003 Jul;29(4):437-50
pubmed: 12705941
Glob Chang Biol. 2017 Mar;23(3):1167-1179
pubmed: 27416555
Science. 2008 May 2;320(5876):629
pubmed: 18451294
Science. 2012 Nov 23;338(6110):1034-5
pubmed: 23180849
Environ Sci Technol. 2011 Nov 15;45(22):9473-83
pubmed: 21961528
Sci Total Environ. 2017 Nov 15;598:445-470
pubmed: 28454025
Environ Sci Technol. 2012 Nov 20;46(22):12726-34
pubmed: 23146092
Glob Chang Biol. 2013 Jan;19(1):33-44
pubmed: 23504719
Sci Rep. 2016 Sep 01;6:32568
pubmed: 27580672
Nature. 2016 Apr 7;532(7597):49-57
pubmed: 27078564
Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 Jul;20(7):387-94
pubmed: 16701401
Environ Sci Technol. 2017 May 2;51(9):4738-4739
pubmed: 28426199
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Sep 5;114(36):9575-9580
pubmed: 28827323
Sci Total Environ. 2014 May 1;479-480:189-200
pubmed: 24561925
Nature. 2007 May 10;447(7141):143-4
pubmed: 17495905
Eur J Agron. 2019 Apr;105:176-188
pubmed: 31007524
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Oct 31;114(44):11645-11650
pubmed: 29078344
Glob Chang Biol. 2020 Mar;26(3):1085-1108
pubmed: 31532049
Glob Chang Biol. 2016 Mar;22(3):1315-24
pubmed: 26732128
Glob Chang Biol. 2017 Feb;23(2):945-954
pubmed: 27483409
Glob Chang Biol. 2013 May;19(5):1347-57
pubmed: 23504715