Climate-smart soils

Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
532,
Pages:
49–57
Date published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nature17174
Received
Accepted
Published online

Abstract

Soils are integral to the function of all terrestrial ecosystems and to food and fibre production. An overlooked aspect of soils is their potential to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Although proven practices exist, the implementation of soil-based greenhouse gas mitigation activities are at an early stage and accurately quantifying emissions and reductions remains a substantial challenge. Emerging research and information technology developments provide the potential for a broader inclusion of soils in greenhouse gas policies. Here we highlight ‘state of the art’ soil greenhouse gas research, summarize mitigation practices and potentials, identify gaps in data and understanding and suggest ways to close such gaps through new research, technology and collaboration.

At a glance

Figures

  1. Decision tree for cropland GHG mitigating practices.
    Figure 1: Decision tree for cropland GHG mitigating practices.

    (Rice is not included.) For degraded, marginal lands, the most productive mitigation option is conversion to perennial vegetation either left unmanaged or sustainably harvested to offset fossil energy use (cellulosic biofuels). Histosol is soil with very high organic matter content, such as from peat bog. For more arable lands, multiple options could be implemented sequentially or in combination, depending on management objectives, cost and other constraints (see Table 1). The practices shown (see Table 1 and text for more discussion) are roughly ordered from lower-cost or higher-feasibility options towards more costly interventions (bottom of figure).

  2. Global potential for agricultural-based GHG mitigation practices.
    Figure 2: Global potential for agricultural-based GHG mitigation practices.

    Management categories are arranged according to average per hectare net GHG reduction rates and potential area (in millions of hectares) of adoption (note log-scales). Unless otherwise noted, estimates are from ref. 19, based on cropland and grassland area projections for 2030. Ranges given in units of total Pg CO2(eq) yr−1 represent varying adoption rates as a function of C pricing (US$20, US$50 and US$100 per Mg CO2(eq)), to a maximum technical potential—that is, the full implementation of practices on the available land base. Multiple practices are aggregated for cropland (for example, improved crop rotations and nutrient management, reduced tillage) and grazing land (for example, grazing management, nutrient and fire management, species introduction) categories. Practices that increase net soil C stocks or reduce emissions of N2O and CH4 are combined in each practice category. The portion of projected mitigation from soil C stock increase (about 90% of the total technical potential) would have a limited time span of 20–30 years, whereas non-CO2 emission reduction could, in principle, continue indefinitely19. Estimates for biochar application67 represent a technical potential only, but it is based on a full life-cycle analysis applicable over a 100-year time span. Although global estimates of the potential impact of enhanced root phenotypes for crops have not been published, a first-order estimate of about 1 Pg CO2(eq) yr−1 is shown, using the global average C accrual rates (0.23 Mg C ha−1 yr−1) for cover crops25, applied to 50% of the cropland land area used by ref. 19. ‘Setaside’ land is arable land, usually for annual crops, that is taken out of production and converted to perennial vegetation (often grassland) and not actively managed for agricultural production, such as conservation reserves.

  3. Expanding the role of agricultural soil GHG mitigation will require an integrated research support and implementation platform.
    Figure 3: Expanding the role of agricultural soil GHG mitigation will require an integrated research support and implementation platform.

    Targeted basic research on soil processes, expanding measurement and monitoring networks, and further developing global geospatial soils data can improve predictive models and reduce uncertainties. Ongoing advances in information technology and complex system and ‘Big Data’ integration offer the potential to engage a broad-range of stakeholders, including land managers, to ‘crowd-source’ local knowledge of agricultural management practices through web-based computer and mobile apps, and help drive advanced model-based GHG metrics. This will facilitate the implementation of climate-smart soil management policies, via cap-and-trade systems, product supply-chain initiatives for ‘low-carbon’ consumer products, and national and international GHG mitigation policies; it will also promote more sustainable and climate-resilient agricultural systems, globally.

References

  1. Ruddiman, W. F. The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of years ago. Clim. Change 61, 261293 (2003)
  2. Smith, P. et al. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) 813922 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014)
  3. Tubiello, F. N. et al. The contribution of agriculture, forestry and other land use activities to global warming, 1990–2012. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 26552660 (2015)
  4. Smith, P. Soils and climate change. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sust. 4, 539544 (2012)
  5. Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) http://www.v-c-s.org/ (accessed May 2015)
  6. American Carbon Registry (ACR) http://americancarbonregistry.org/ (accessed May 2015)
  7. Lavallée, S. & Plouffe, S. The ecolabel and sustainable development. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 9, 349354 (2004)
  8. Kahiluoto, H., Smith, P., Moran, D. & Olesen, J. E. Enabling food security by verifying agricultural carbon sequestration. Nature Clim. Change 4, 309311 (2014)
  9. Ciais, P. et al. Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 465570 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013)
  10. Join the 4‰ Initiative Soils for Food Security and Climate http://agriculture.gouv.fr/join-40-initiative-soils-food-security-and-climate-0 (accessed 23 Sept 2015)
  11. Batjes, N. H. Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 47, 151163 (1996)
  12. Paustian, K. et al. Agricultural soil as a C sink to offset CO2 emissions. Soil Use Manage. 13, 230244 (1997)
  13. West, T. O. & Six, J. Considering the influence of sequestration duration and carbon saturation on estimates of soil carbon capacity. Clim. Change 80, 2541 (2007)
  14. Davidson, E. A. & Ackerman, I. L. Changes in soil carbon inventories following cultivation of previously untilled soils. Biogeochemistry 20, 161193 (1993)
  15. Ogle, S. M., Breidt, F. J. & Paustian, K. Agricultural management impacts on soil organic carbon storage under moist and dry climatic conditions of temperate and tropical regions. Biogeochemistry 72, 87121 (2005)
  16. Conant, R. T., Paustian, K. & Elliott, E. T. Grassland management and conversion into grassland: effects on soil carbon. Ecol. Appl. 11, 343355 (2001)
  17. Guo, L. B. & Gifford, R. M. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 8, 345360 (2002)
  18. IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (eds Eggleston, S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe, K.) Vol. 4, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, 2006)
  19. Smith, P. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363, 789813 (2008).A comprehensive analysis of agricultural GHG emissions and mitigation potentials including estimated C price impacts on mitigation activities.
  20. Knox, S. H. et al. Agricultural peatland restoration: effects of land-use change on greenhouse gas (CO2 and CH4) fluxes in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 750765 (2015)
  21. Foley, J. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337342 (2011)
  22. Kell, D. Large-scale sequestration of atmospheric carbon via plant roots in natural and agricultural ecosystems: why and how. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 367, 15891597 (2012)
  23. Burney, J. A. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 1205212057 (2010)
  24. Wilhelm, W. W., Johnson, J. M. F., Hatfield, J. L., Voorhees, W. B. & Linden, D. R. Crop and soil productivity response to corn residue removal: a literature review. Agron. J. 96, 117 (2004)
  25. Poeplau, C. & Don, A. Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops—a meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 200, 3341 (2015).This paper combines an analysis of globally distributed field data with simulation modelling to quantify potential soil C increases with adoption of cover crops on previously fallow soils.
  26. Tonitto, C., David, M. B. & Drinkwater, L. E. Replacing bare fallows with cover crops in fertilizer-intensive cropping systems: a meta-analysis of crop yield and N dynamics. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 112, 5872 (2006)
  27. Lemke, R. L., VandenBygaart, A. J., Campbell, C. A., Lafond, G. P. & Grant, B. Crop residue removal and fertilizer N: effects on soil organic carbon in a long-term crop rotation experiment on a Udic Boroll. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 135, 4251 (2010)
  28. Shcherbak, I., Millar, N. & Robertson, G. P. Global meta-analysis of the nonlinear response of soil nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions to fertilizer nitrogen. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 91999204 (2014).This paper shows that N2O emissions are greater than previously thought for soils receiving high rates of N fertilizer.
  29. Six, J., Elliott, E. T. & Paustian, K. Soil macroaggregate turnover and microaggregate formation: a mechanism for C sequestration under no-tillage agriculture. Soil Biol. Biochem. 32, 20992103 (2000)
  30. Powlson, D. S. et al. Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nature Clim. Change 4, 678683 (2014)
  31. Kravchenko, A. N. & Robertson, G. P. Whole-profile soil carbon stocks: the danger of assuming too much from analyses of too little. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75, 235240 (2011)
  32. McSherry, M. E. & Ritchie, M. E. Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: a global review. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 13471357 (2013)
  33. Scholes, M. J. & Scholes, R. J. Dust unto dust. Science 342, 565566 (2013)
  34. Conant, R. T. et al. Temperature and soil organic matter decomposition rates—synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 33923404 (2011)
  35. Cotrufo, M. F., Wallenstein, M., Boot, C. M., Denef, K. & Paul, E. A. The Microbial Efficiency-Matrix Stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: do labile plant inputs form stable soil organic matter? Glob. Change Biol. 19, 988995 (2013)
  36. Schmidt, M. W. I. et al. Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478, 4956 (2011)
  37. Stewart, C. E., Plant, A. F., Paustian, K., Conant, R. & Six, J. Soil carbon saturation: linking concept and measurable carbon pools. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 72, 379392 (2008)
  38. Rumpel, C. & Koegel-Knabner, I. Deep soil organic matter—a key but poorly understood component of terrestrial C cycle. Plant Soil 338, 143158 (2011)
  39. Nadeu, E., Gobin, A., Fiener, P., van Wesemael, B. & van Oost, K. Modelling the impact of agricultural management on soil carbon stocks at the regional scale: the role of lateral fluxes. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 31813192 (2015)
  40. Grandy, A. S. & Neff, J. C. Molecular C dynamics downstream: the biochemical decomposition sequence and its impact on soil organic matter structure and function. Sci. Total Environ. 404, 297307 (2008)
  41. Ryals, R., Hartman, M. D., Parton, W. J., DeLonge, M. & Silver, W. L. Long-term climate change mitigation potential with organic matter management on grasslands. Ecol. Appl. 25, 531545 (2015).Field experiments and modelling were used to show reductions in net GHG emissions from grazed annual grasslands using composted green waste applications.
  42. Lehmann, J. et al. In Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation (eds Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S.) 235282 (Taylor and Francis, 2015)
  43. Roberts, K., Gloy, B., Joseph, S., Scott, N. & Lehmann, J. Life cycle assessment of biochar systems: estimating the energetic, economic and climate change potential. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 827833 (2010)
  44. DeLonge, M. S., Ryals, R. & Silver, W. L. A lifecycle model to evaluate carbon sequestration potential and greenhouse gas dynamics of managed grasslands. Ecosystems 16, 962979 (2013)
  45. Kuzyakov, Y. Priming effects: interactions between living and dead organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 13631371 (2010)
  46. Zimmerman, A., Gao, B. & Ahn, M. Y. Positive and negative mineralization priming effects among a variety of biochar-amended soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43, 11691179 (2011)
  47. Whitman, T., Zhu, Z. & Lehmann, J. Carbon mineralizability determines interactive effects on mineralization of pyrogenic organic matter and soil organic carbon. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 1372713734 (2014)
  48. Whitman, T., Nicholson, C. F., Torres, D. & Lehmann, J. Climate change impact of biochar cook stoves in Western Kenyan farm households: system dynamics model analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 36873694 (2011)
  49. Bouwman, A. F., Boumans, L. J. M. & Batjes, N. H. Emissions of N2O and NO from fertilized fields: summary of available measurement data. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 16, 1058 (2002)
  50. Robertson, G. P. & Vitousek, P. M. Nitrogen in agriculture: balancing the cost of an essential resource. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 97125 (2009)
  51. Akiyama, H., Yan, X. Y. & Yagi, K. Evaluation of effectiveness of enhanced-efficiency fertilizers as mitigation options for N2O and NO emissions from agricultural soils: meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 18371846 (2010)
  52. Aguilera, E., Lassaletta, L., Sanz Cobeña, A., Garnier, J. & Vallejo Garcia, A. The potential of organic fertilizers and water management to reduce N2O emissions in Mediterranean climate cropping systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 164, 3252 (2013)
  53. van Kessel, C. et al. Climate, duration, and N placement determine N2O emissions in reduced tillage systems: a meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 3344 (2013)
  54. Millar, N., Robertson, G. P., Grace, P. R., Gehl, R. J. & Hoben, J. P. Nitrogen fertilizer management for nitrous oxide (N2O) mitigation in intensive corn (maize) production: an emissions reduction protocol for US Midwest agriculture. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 15, 185204 (2010)
  55. Robertson, G. P. Nitrogen–climate interactions in US agriculture. Biogeochemistry 114, 4170 (2013)
  56. Reay, D. S. et al. Global agriculture and nitrous oxide emissions. Nature Clim. Change 2, 410416 (2012)
  57. Conrad, R. The global methane cycle: recent advances in understanding the microbial processes involved. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 1, 285292 (2009)
  58. Le Mer, J. & Roger, P. Production, oxidation, emission and consumption of methane by soils. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 37, 2550 (2001)
  59. Segers, R. Methane production and methane consumption: a review of processes underlying wetland methane fluxes. Biogeochemistry 41, 2351 (1998)
  60. Suwanwaree, P. & Robertson, G. P. Methane oxidation in forest, successional, and no-till agricultural ecosystems: effects of nitrogen and soil disturbance. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69, 17221729 (2005)
  61. Linquist, B. A. et al. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and grain arsenic levels in rice systems. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 407417 (2015)
  62. Liu, Y. et al. Carbon dioxide flux from rice paddy soils in central China: effects of intermittent flooding and draining cycles. PLoS ONE 8, e56562 (2013)
  63. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)–Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Agricultural Outlook 2015–2024. http://stats.oecd.org (worldwide rice production for 2000 to 2024 period, accessed March 2016)
  64. van Groenigen, K. J., van Kessel, C. & Hungate, B. A. Increased greenhouse-gas intensity of rice production under future atmospheric conditions. Nature Clim. Change 3, 288291 (2012)
  65. Levine, U. et al. Agriculture’s impact on microbial diversity and associated fluxes of carbon dioxide and methane. ISME J. 5, 16831691 (2011)
  66. Su, J. et al. Expression of barley SUSIBA2 transcription factor yields high-starch low-methane rice. Nature 523, 602606 (2015)
  67. Woolf, D., Amonette, J. E., Street-Perrott, F. A., Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S. Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature Commun. 1, 56 (2010).This paper calculates the global technical potential of greenhouse gas emission reductions by biochar systems as a function of its effects on soil improvement.
  68. Lynch, J. P. & Wojciechowski, T. Opportunities and challenges in the subsoil: pathways to deeper rooted crops. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 21992210 (2015).This paper looks at the potential for breeding plants with more root production and tolerance to ‘problem soils’, to increase yields, nutrient and water capture, and C sequestration.
  69. Smith, S. & De Smet, I. Root system architecture: insights from Arabidopsis and cereal crops introduction. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 367, 14411452 (2012)
  70. Conant, R. T., Ogle, S. M., Paul, E. A. & Paustian, K. Measuring and monitoring soil organic carbon stocks in agricultural lands for climate mitigation. Front. Ecol. Environ 9, 169173 (2011)
  71. Paustian, K., Ogle, S. M. & Conant, R. T. In Handbook of Climate Change and Agroecosystems: Impact, Adaptation and Mitigation (eds Hillel, D. & Rosenzweig, C.) 307341 (Imperial College Press, 2011.)
  72. Hillier, J. G. A farm-focused calculator for emissions from crop and livestock production. Environ. Modell. Softw. 26, 10701078 (2011)
  73. Swallow, B. M. & Goddard, T. W. Value chains for bio-carbon sequestration services: lessons from contrasting cases in Canada, Kenya and Mozambique. Land Use Policy 31, 8189 (2013)
  74. National Academy of Sciences. Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Methods to Support International Climate Agreements http://www.nap.edu/download.php?record_id=12883 (eds Pacala, S. et al.) 1110 (National Academies Press, 2010)
  75. Paustian, K. et al. in Managing Agricultural Greenhouse Gases: Coordinated Agricultural Research through GraceNet to Address Our Changing Climate (eds Liebig, M., Franzluebbers, A. & Follett, R.) 251270 (Academic Press, 2012)
  76. Paustian, K. Bridging the data gap: engaging developing country farmers in greenhouse gas accounting. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 021001 (2013).This paper proposes the development of mobile apps to ‘crowd-source’ local-scale knowledge of land use and management data to help improve GHG inventories and project-scale accounting in developing countries.
  77. Ogle, S. M. et al. Scale and uncertainty in modeled soil organic carbon stock changes for US croplands using a process-based model. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 810822 (2010)
  78. Smith, P. et al. Towards an integrated global framework to assess the impacts of land use and management change on soil carbon: current capability and future vision. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 20892101 (2012)
  79. Bellassen, V. et al. Monitoring, reporting and verifying emissions in the climate economy. Nature Clim. Change 5, 319328 (2015)
  80. van Wesemael, B. et al. How can soil monitoring networks be used to improve predictions of organic carbon pool dynamics and CO2 fluxes in agricultural soils? Plant Soil 338, 247259 (2011)
  81. Ogle, S. M., Breidt, F. J., Easter, M., Williams, S. & Paustian, K. An empirically based approach for estimating uncertainty associated with modeling carbon sequestration in soils. Ecol. Modell. 205, 453463 (2007)
  82. Peters, W. et al. An atmospheric perspective on North American carbon dioxide exchange: CarbonTracker. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 1892518930 (2007)
  83. Schuh, A. E. et al. Evaluating atmospheric CO2 inversions at multiple scales over highly-inventoried agricultural landscape. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 14241439 (2013)
  84. Miles, N. L. et al. Large amplitude spatial and temporal gradients in atmospheric boundary layer CO2 mole fractions detected with a tower-based network in the U.S. upper Midwest. J. Geophys. Res. 117, G01019 (2012)
  85. Lauvaux, T. et al. Constraining the CO2 budget of the corn belt: exploring uncertainties from the assumptions in a mesoscale inverse system. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 12, 337354 (2012)
  86. Cooley, D., Breidt, F. J., Ogle, S. M., Schuh, A. E. & Lauvaux, T. A constrained least-squares approach to combine bottom-up and top-down CO2 flux estimates. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 20, 129146 (2013).One of the first studies using independent ground- and atmosphere-based methods to validate GHG emissions estimates for a large agriculturally intensive region.
  87. Kadygrov, N. et al. Role of simulated GOSAT total column CO2 observations in surface CO2 flux uncertainty reduction. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D21208 (2009)
  88. Basu, S. et al. Global CO2 fluxes estimated from GOSAT retrievals of total column CO2. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 86958717 (2013)
  89. Pacala, S. & Socolow, R. Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305, 968972 (2004)
  90. Alexander, P., Paustian, K., Smith, P. & Moran, D. The economics of soil C sequestration and agricultural emissions abatement. Soil 1, 331339 (2015)
  91. NitroEurope http://www.nitroeurope.eu (accessed May 2015)
  92. GRACEnet http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm?np_code=212&docid=21223 (USDA, accessed May 2015)
  93. Dhawale, N. M. et al. Proximal soil sensing of soil texture and organic matter with a prototype portable mid-infrared spectrometer. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 66, 661669 (2015)
  94. Yeluripati, J. et al. Global Research Alliance Modelling Platform (GRAMP): an open web platform for modelling greenhouse gas emissions from agro-ecosystems. Comp. Elec. Agric. 111, 112120 (2015)
  95. Sanchez, P. Digital soil map of the world. Science 325, 680681 (2009)
  96. The Web Soil Survey http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed May 2015)
  97. Awan, M. I., van Oort, P. A. J., Ahmad, R., Bastiaans, L. & Meinke, H. Farmers’ views on the future prospects of aerobic rice culture in Pakistan. Land Use Policy 42, 517526 (2015)
  98. Smith, P. et al. Policy and technological constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 118, 628 (2007)
  99. Louwagie, G. S.H., Sammeth, F. & Ratinger, T. The potential of European Union policies to address soil degradation in agriculture. Land Degrad. Dev. 22, 517 (2011)
  100. Decision No 529/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on accounting rules on greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from activities relating to land use, land-use change and forestry and on information concerning actions relating to those activities. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOL_2013_165_R_0080_01 (EUR-Lex, Access to European Union Law, accessed May 2015)
  101. Field to Market Alliance https://www.fieldtomarket.org/ (accessed May 2015)
  102. Unilever Sustainable Agriculture Code https://www.unilever.com/Images/sac-2015_tcm244-427050_en.pdf (accessed Feb 2016)
  103. Horowitz, J. K. & Just, R. E. Economics of additionality for environmental services from agriculture. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 66, 105122 (2013)

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

    • Keith Paustian
  2. Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

    • Keith Paustian &
    • Stephen Ogle
  3. Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA

    • Johannes Lehmann
  4. Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

    • Stephen Ogle
  5. School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    • David Reay
  6. W. K. Kellogg Biological Station and Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

    • G. Philip Robertson
  7. Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

    • Pete Smith

Contributions

K.P. led the development of the manuscript and the integration of content. All authors contributed equally to drafting sections of the manuscript and making revisions.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

Comments

  1. Report this comment #67871

    Vincent Gutschick said:

    The coverage is global and many amelioration methods are covered. In practice, there are additional limitations over those cited here. Over and above the use of models, the direct measurement of emissions (and their amelioration) the most reliable way, by eddy covariance, is costly and thus spotty in coverage. The measurement of annual or even decadal changes in soil C is challenging, as they are very small compared to extant C stocks. Confirmation of implementation of amelioration methods would involve high-resolution satellite imagery to attain coverage of large areas; this is possible, as shown by rapid resolution of Amazonian deforestation (the DETER program in Brazil); a large-scale commitment of resources for detection would be necessary.

Subscribe to comments

Additional data