Enhanced agricultural carbon sinks provide benefits for farmers and the climate.
Journal
Nature food
ISSN: 2662-1355
Titre abrégé: Nat Food
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101761102
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2024
Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
14
11
2023
accepted:
07
08
2024
medline:
24
9
2024
pubmed:
24
9
2024
entrez:
23
9
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Carbon sequestration on agricultural land, albeit long-time neglected, offers substantial mitigation potential. Here we project, using an economic land-use model, that these options offer cumulative mitigation potentials comparable to afforestation by 2050 at 160 USD
Identifiants
pubmed: 39313684
doi: 10.1038/s43016-024-01039-1
pii: 10.1038/s43016-024-01039-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
742-753Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Tubiello, F. N. et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from food systems: building the evidence base. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 065007 (2021).
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac018e
Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198–209 (2021).
pubmed: 37117443
doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
IPCC Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
Pendrill, F. et al. Disentangling the numbers behind agriculture-driven tropical deforestation. Science 377, eabm9267 (2022).
pubmed: 36074840
doi: 10.1126/science.abm9267
Curtis, P. G. et al. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361, 1108–1111 (2018).
pubmed: 30213911
doi: 10.1126/science.aau3445
Frank, S. et al. Agricultural non-CO
doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0358-8
Tubiello, F. N. et al. The contribution of agriculture, forestry and other land use activities to global warming, 1990–2012. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 2655–2660 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.12865
Rogelj, J. et al. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 325–332 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0091-3
Clark, M. A. et al. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets. Science 370, 705 (2020).
pubmed: 33154139
doi: 10.1126/science.aba7357
Reisinger, A. et al. How necessary and feasible are reductions of methane emissions from livestock to support stringent temperature goals? Philos. Trans. A 379, 20200452 (2021).
Ripple, W. J. et al. Ruminants, climate change and climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 2–5 (2014).
doi: 10.1038/nclimate2081
Herrero, M. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 452–461 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/nclimate2925
Havlík, P. et al. Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3709–3714 (2014).
pubmed: 24567375
pmcid: 3956143
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308044111
Leahy, S., Clark, H. & Reisinger, A. Challenges and prospects for agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation pathways consistent with the Paris Agreement. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00069 (2020).
Henderson, B., Frezal, C. & Flynn, E. A Survey of GHG Mitigation Policies for the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Sector OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers No. 145 (OECD, 2020).
Amundson, R. & Biardeau, L. Soil carbon sequestration is an elusive climate mitigation tool. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11652–11656 (2018).
pubmed: 30425181
pmcid: 6243274
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1815901115
Henderson, B. et al. Soil Carbon Sequestration by Agriculture OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers No. 174 (OECD, 2022).
DeFries, R. et al. Land management can contribute to net zero. Science 376, 1163–1165 (2022).
pubmed: 35679411
doi: 10.1126/science.abo0613
Hasegawa, T. et al. Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 699–703 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0230-x
Frank, S. et al. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 105004 (2017).
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa8c83
Fujimori, S. et al. A multi-model assessment of food security implications of climate change mitigation. Nat. Sustain. 2, 386–396 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0286-2
Hussein, Z., Hertel, T. & Golub, A. Climate change mitigation policies and poverty in developing countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 035009 (2013).
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035009
Bossio, D. A. et al. The role of soil carbon in natural climate solutions. Nat. Sustain. 3, 391–398 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-0491-z
Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645 (2017).
pubmed: 29078344
pmcid: 5676916
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1710465114
Roe, S. et al. Land-based measures to mitigate climate change: potential and feasibility by country. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 6025–6058 (2021).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.15873
IPCC Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems (eds Sukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).
Jeffery, S. et al. Biochar boosts tropical but not temperate crop yields. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 053001 (2017).
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa67bd
Diatta, A. A. et al. Effects of biochar on soil fertility and crop productivity in arid regions: a review. Arabian J. Geosci. 13, 595 (2020).
doi: 10.1007/s12517-020-05586-2
Dokoohaki, H. et al. Where should we apply biochar? Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 044005 (2019).
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aafcf0
Amelung, W. et al. Towards a global-scale soil climate mitigation strategy. Nat. Commun. 11, 5427 (2020).
pubmed: 33110065
pmcid: 7591914
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18887-7
Lal, R. Soil organic matter content and crop yield. J. Soil Water Conserv. 75, 27A (2020).
doi: 10.2489/jswc.75.2.27A
Wang, L. et al. Role of biochar toward carbon neutrality. Carbon Res. 2, 2 (2023).
doi: 10.1007/s44246-023-00035-7
Duffy, C. et al. Agroforestry contributions to smallholder farmer food security in Indonesia. Agrofor. Syst. 95, 1109–1124 (2021).
doi: 10.1007/s10457-021-00632-8
Waldron, A. et al. Agroforestry can enhance food security while meeting other Sustainable Development Goals. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 10, 1940082917720667 (2017).
doi: 10.1177/1940082917720667
Iiyama, M. et al. The potential of agroforestry in the provision of sustainable woodfuel in sub-Saharan Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 6, 138–147 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.12.003
Hellin, J. & Fisher, E. The Achilles heel of climate-smart agriculture. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 493–494 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0515-8
Chapman, M. et al. Large climate mitigation potential from adding trees to agricultural lands. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 4357–4365 (2020).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.15121
Frank, S. et al. How much multilateralism do we need? Effectiveness of unilateral agricultural mitigation efforts in the global context. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 104038 (2021).
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac2967
Golub, A. et al. The opportunity cost of land use and the global potential for greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture and forestry. Resour. Energy Econ. 31, 299–319 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2009.04.007
Frank, S. et al. Land-based climate change mitigation potentials within the agenda for sustainable development. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 024006 (2021).
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abc58a
Gusti, M. An algorithm for simulation of forest management decisions in the Global Forest Model. Artif. Intell. N4, 45–49 (2010).
Kindermann, G. et al. Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 10302–10307 (2008).
pubmed: 18650377
pmcid: 2483236
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0710616105
Almaraz, M. et al. Soil carbon sequestration in global working lands as a gateway for negative emission technologies. Glob. Change Biol. 29, 5988–5998 (2023).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.16884
Ivezić, V., Yu, Y. & Van Der Werf, W. Crop yields in European agroforestry systems: a meta-analysis. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.606631 (2021).
Pardon, P. et al. Effects of temperate agroforestry on yield and quality of different arable intercrops. Agric. Syst. 166, 135–151 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.08.008
Fricko, O. et al. The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: a middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 251–267 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.004
O'Neill, B. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change 122, 387–400 (2014).
doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2
Hasegawa, T., et al. Land-based implications of early climate actions without global net-negative emissions. Nat. Sustain. 4, 1052–1059 (2021).
Riahi, K. et al. Cost and attainability of meeting stringent climate targets without overshoot. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 1063–1069 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01215-2
Zomer, R. J. et al. Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Sci. Rep. 6, 29987 (2016).
pubmed: 27435095
pmcid: 4951720
doi: 10.1038/srep29987
Zomer, R. J. et al. Global carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry and increased tree cover on agricultural land. Circular Agric. Syst. 2, 1–10 (2022).
doi: 10.48130/CAS-2022-0003
Prestele, R. et al. A spatially explicit representation of conservation agriculture for application in global change studies. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 4038–4053 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.14307
Henderson, B. B. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of the world’s grazing lands: modeling soil carbon and nitrogen fluxes of mitigation practices. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 207, 91–100 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2015.03.029
Paustian, K. et al. Climate-smart soils. Nature 532, 49–57 (2016).
pubmed: 27078564
doi: 10.1038/nature17174
Bai, Y. & Cotrufo, M. F. Grassland soil carbon sequestration: current understanding, challenges, and solutions. Science 377, 603–608 (2022).
pubmed: 35926033
doi: 10.1126/science.abo2380
Bardgett, R. D. et al. Combatting global grassland degradation. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2, 720–735 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s43017-021-00207-2
Krey, V. et al. MESSAGEix-GLOBIOM Documentation (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2020).
Herrero, M. et al. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 20888–20893 (2013).
pubmed: 24344273
pmcid: 3876224
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308149110
Smith, P. Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1315–1324 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.13178
Roe, S. et al. Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 817–828 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0591-9
Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation (OECD, 2022).
Zurek, M., Hebinck, A. & Selomane, O. Climate change and the urgency to transform food systems. Science 376, 1416–1421 (2022).
pubmed: 35737771
doi: 10.1126/science.abo2364
Patterson, J. J. et al. Political feasibility of 1.5°C societal transformations: the role of social justice. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 31, 1–9 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.11.002
Lipper, L. et al. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 1068–1072 (2014).
doi: 10.1038/nclimate2437
Venier-Cambron, C. et al. Representing justice in global land-use scenarios can align biodiversity benefits with protection from land grabbing. One Earth https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.03.006 (2024).
Giang, A. et al. Equity and modeling in sustainability science: examples and opportunities throughout the process. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2215688121 (2024).
pubmed: 38498705
pmcid: 10990085
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2215688121
Bradford, M. A. et al. Managing uncertainty in soil carbon feedbacks to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 751–758 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/nclimate3071
Arora, V. K. et al. Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models. Biogeosciences 17, 4173–4222 (2020).
doi: 10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020
Beillouin, D. et al. A global meta-analysis of soil organic carbon in the Anthropocene. Nat. Commun. 14, 3700 (2023).
pubmed: 37349294
pmcid: 10287672
doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-39338-z
Frank, D. et al. Effects of climate extremes on the terrestrial carbon cycle: concepts, processes and potential future impacts. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 2861–2880 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.12916
Pinheiro, F. M. et al. Soil carbon stock and stability under eucalyptus-based silvopasture and other land-use systems in the Cerrado biodiversity hotspot. J. Environ. Manage. 299, 113676 (2021).
pubmed: 34526275
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113676
Pent, G. Over-yielding in temperate silvopastures: a meta-analysis. Agrofor. Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-020-00494-6 (2020).
Grosjean, G. et al. Options to overcome the barriers to pricing European agricultural emissions. Clim. Policy 18, 151–169 (2018).
doi: 10.1080/14693062.2016.1258630
Wreford, A., Ignaciuk, A. & Gruère, G. Overcoming Barriers to the Adoption of Climate-Friendly Practices in Agriculture OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers No. 145 (OECD, 2017).
Brown, C. et al. Achievement of Paris climate goals unlikely due to time lags in the land system. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 203–208 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0400-5
Owombo, P. T. & Idumah, F. O. Determinants of agroforestry technology adoption among arable crop farmers in Ondo State, Nigeria: an empirical investigation. Agrofor. Syst. 91, 919–926 (2017).
doi: 10.1007/s10457-016-9967-2
Shyamsundar, P. et al. Scaling smallholder tree cover restoration across the tropics. Glob. Environ. Change 76, 102591 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102591
Henderson, B. & Verma, M. Global Assessment of the Carbon Leakage Implications of Carbon Taxes on Agricultural Emissions OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers No. 170 (OECD, 2021).
Lamboll, R. D. et al. Assessing the size and uncertainty of remaining carbon budgets. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 1360–1367 (2023).
Pe’er, G. et al. A greener path for the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Science 365, 449–451 (2019).
pubmed: 31371602
doi: 10.1126/science.aax3146
Carlson, K. M. et al. Greenhouse gas emissions intensity of global croplands. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 63–68 (2016).
Laborde, D. et al. Agricultural subsidies and global greenhouse gas emissions. Nat. Commun. 12, 2601 (2021).
pubmed: 33972533
pmcid: 8110782
doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22703-1
Cohn, A. S. et al. Cattle ranching intensification in Brazil can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by sparing land from deforestation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 7236–7241 (2014).
pubmed: 24778243
pmcid: 4034253
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1307163111
Spillias, S. et al. Reducing global land-use pressures with seaweed farming. Nat. Sustain. 6, 380–390 (2023).
doi: 10.1038/s41893-022-01043-y
The State of Food and Agriculture: Livestock in the Balance (FAO, 2009).
Wongpiyabovorn, O., Plastina, A. & Crespi, J. M. Challenges to voluntary Ag carbon markets. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 45, 1154–1167 (2023).
doi: 10.1002/aepp.13254
Klenert, D. et al. Making carbon pricing work for citizens. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 669–677 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0201-2
Kahiluoto, H. et al. Enabling food security by verifying agricultural carbon. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 309–311 (2014).
doi: 10.1038/nclimate2209
Thompson, N. M. et al. Opportunities and challenges associated with ‘carbon farming’ for US row-crop producers. Choices 37, 316-2022-1149 (2022).
Marland, G., McCarl, B. A. & Schneider, U. Soil carbon: policy and economics. Clim. Change 51, 101–117 (2001).
doi: 10.1023/A:1017575018866
IBF-IIASA Global Biosphere Management Model (GLOBIOM) Documentation 2023 Version 1.0 (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2023).
Skalský, R. et al. GEO-BENE Global Database for Bio-physical Modeling Version 1.0—Concepts, Methodologies and Data. The GEO-BENE Database Report (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2008).
Williams, J. R. in Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology (ed. Singh, V. P.) 909–1000 (Water Resources, 1995).
Kindermann, G. E. et al. A global forest growing stock, biomass and carbon map based on FAO statistics. Silva Fennica 42, 387–396 (2008).
doi: 10.14214/sf.244
Huppmann, D. et al. The MESSAGEix Integrated Assessment Model and the ix modeling platform (ixmp): an open framework for integrated and cross-cutting analysis of energy, climate, the environment, and sustainable development. Environ. Model. Softw. 112, 143–156 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.11.012
Landsberg, J. J. & Waring, R. H. A generalised model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation-use efficiency, carbon balance and partitioning. For. Ecol. Manag. 95, 209–228 (1997).
doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00026-1
Forrester, D. I. & Tang, X. Analysing the spatial and temporal dynamics of species interactions in mixed-species forests and the effects of stand density using the 3-PG model. Ecol. Model. 319, 233–254 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.07.010
Augustynczik, A. L. D. & Yousefpour, R. Assessing the synergistic value of ecosystem services in European beech forests. Ecosyst. Serv. 49, 101264 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101264
Viskari, T. et al. Calibrating the soil organic carbon model Yasso20 with multiple datasets. Geosci. Model Dev. 15, 1735–1752 (2022).
doi: 10.5194/gmd-15-1735-2022
Andrén, O. & Kätterer, T. ICBM: the introductory carbon balance model for exploration of soil carbon balances. Ecol. Appl. 7, 1226–1236 (1997).
doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(1997)007[1226:ITICBM]2.0.CO;2
Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids250m: global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS ONE 12, e0169748 (2017).
pubmed: 28207752
pmcid: 5313206
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169748
Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1‐km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).
doi: 10.1002/joc.5086
Booth, T. H. Eucalypt plantations and climate change. For. Ecol. Manag. 301, 28–34 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.04.004
Trotsiuk, V., Hartig, F. & Forrester, D. I. r3PG–an r package for simulating forest growth using the 3‐PG process‐based model. Meth. Ecol. Evol. 11, 1470–1475 (2020).
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13474
Cubbage, F. et al. Comparing silvopastoral systems and prospects in eight regions of the world. Agrofor. Syst. 86, 303–314 (2012).
doi: 10.1007/s10457-012-9482-z
Jose, S., Walter, D. & Mohan Kumar, B. Ecological considerations in sustainable silvopasture design and management. Agrofor. Syst. 93, 317–331 (2019).
doi: 10.1007/s10457-016-0065-2
Tonucci, R. G. et al. Soil carbon storage in silvopasture and related land-use systems in the Brazilian cerrado. J. Environ. Qual. 40, 833–841 (2011).
pubmed: 21546669
doi: 10.2134/jeq2010.0162
Rockwood, D. L. et al. in New Vistas in Agroforestry: A Compendium for 1st World Congress of Agroforestry (eds Nair, P. K. R. et al.) 51–63 (Springer, 2004).
Hamilton, J. Silvopasture Establishment and Management Principles for Pine Forests in the Southeastern United States 72 (USDA National Agroforestry Center, 2008).
Smith, M. M. et al. Silvopasture in the USA: a systematic review of natural resource professional and producer-reported benefits, challenges, and management activities. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 326, 107818 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107818
Quinkenstein, A. et al. Ecological benefits of the alley cropping agroforestry system in sensitive regions of Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy 12, 1112–1121 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2009.08.008
Havlík, P. et al. Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Energy Policy 39, 5690–5702 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.030
Di Fulvio, F. et al. Spatially explicit assessment of roundwood and logging residues availability and costs for the EU28. Scand. J. For. Res. 31, 691–707 (2016).
doi: 10.1080/02827581.2016.1221128
Panoutsou, C. Modeling and Optimization of Biomass Supply Chains: Top-Down and Bottom-Up Assessment for Agricultural, Forest and Waste Feedstock (Academic Press, 2017).
Eggelston, H. S. et al. (eds) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (IGES, 2006).
Smith, P. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 363, 789–813 (2008).
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2184
Lal, R. Enhancing crop yields in the developing countries through restoration of the soil organic carbon pool in agricultural lands. Land Degrad. Dev. 17, 197–209 (2006).
doi: 10.1002/ldr.696
Homagain, K. et al. Life cycle cost and economic assessment of biochar-based bioenergy production and biochar land application in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. For. Ecosyst. 3, 21 (2016).
doi: 10.1186/s40663-016-0081-8
Lauri, P. et al. Impact of the 2°C target on global woody biomass use. For. Policy Econ. 83, 121–130 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.07.005
Holmatov, B. et al. Can crop residues provide fuel for future transport? Limited global residue bioethanol potentials and large associated land, water and carbon footprints. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 149, 111417 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111417
Scarlat, N., Martinov, M. & Dallemand, J.-F. Assessment of the availability of agricultural crop residues in the European Union: potential and limitations for bionenergy use. Waste Manage. 30, 1889–1897 (2010).
doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.016
Deckungsbeiträge und Daten für die Betriebsplanung 2008 (BMLFUW, 2008).