Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation

Abstract

The Emissions Gap Report 2013 from the United Nations Environment Programme restates the claim that changing to no-till practices in agriculture, as an alternative to conventional tillage, causes an accumulation of organic carbon in soil, thus mitigating climate change through carbon sequestration. But these claims ignore a large body of experimental evidence showing that the quantity of additional organic carbon in soil under no-till is relatively small: in large part apparent increases result from an altered depth distribution. The larger concentration near the surface in no-till is generally beneficial for soil properties that often, though not always, translate into improved crop growth. In many regions where no-till is practised it is common for soil to be cultivated conventionally every few years for a range of agronomic reasons, so any soil carbon benefit is then lost. We argue that no-till is beneficial for soil quality and adaptation of agriculture to climate change, but its role in mitigation is widely overstated.

Full text

678 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 4 | AUGUST 2014 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange
The recent Emissions Gap Report 20131 makes bold statements
about agriculture’s potential to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. e authors of the chapter on ‘Policies
for Reducing Emissions from Agriculture’ estimate that at a mar-
ginal cost of less than US$50–100 per tonne of CO2 equivalent
(CO2e), direct emissions from agriculture could be reduced by 1.1
to 4.3GtCO2eyr−1 by 2020. ey claim that 89% of this poten-
tial could be realized through improved management practices
including conversion to no-tillage land preparation (Box 1), more
ecient use of water and fertilizers and addition of biochar to soil.
Optimistic assessment
Overall the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
report1 is helpful: it demonstrates that current global eorts to
decrease emissions are far below what is necessary to avoid dan-
gerous climate change2 and it attempts to quantify opportuni-
ties for further reductions in dierent sectors. However, we have
substantial concerns that the report overstates the potential for
climate change mitigation in agriculture due to over-optimistic
assumptions concerning the impact of no-till practices (Box 1
and Fig. 1).
ere is abundant published evidence that no-till is benecial
for the functioning and quality of soil (Table 1) in many, though
not all, situations3–5. e soil conditions developed oer potential
for improved crop growth and increased resilience to weather
variability and likely impacts of climate change, so in some envi-
ronments can be regarded as a contribution to climate change
adaptation. But published data on the magnitude of climate
change mitigation from no-till through sequestration of organic
carbon (C) in soil is much more equivocal, so the UNEP report1
gives a false message of optimism regarding the ability of human-
ity to combat climate change by reducing GHG emissions from
Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate
change mitigation
David S. Powlson1*, Clare M. Stirling2, M. L. Jat3, Bruno G. Gerard2, Cheryl A. Palm4, Pedro A. Sanchez4
and Kenneth G. Cassman5
The Emissions Gap Report 2013 from the United Nations Environment Programme restates the claim that changing to
no-till practices in agriculture, as an alternative to conventional tillage, causes an accumulation of organic carbon in soil,
thus mitigating climate change through carbon sequestration. But these claims ignore a large body of experimental evidence
showing that the quantity of additional organic carbon in soil under no-till is relatively small: in large part apparent increases
result from an altered depth distribution. The larger concentration near the surface in no-till is generally beneficial for soil
properties that often, though not always, translate into improved crop growth. In many regions where no-till is practised it is
common for soil to be cultivated conventionally every few years for a range of agronomic reasons, so any soil carbon benefit
is then lost. We argue that no-till is beneficial for soil quality and adaptation of agriculture to climate change, but its role in
mitigation is widely overstated.
agriculture. If, as we maintain, the contribution through promot-
ing no-till practices is substantially less than claimed, there is even
more pressure to deliver mitigation through other approaches —
both in agriculture and in other sectors.
Soil carbon stocks and climate change
Organic matter in the world’s soils represents a major stock of organic
C, storing about 1,500GtC (equivalent to 5,500GtCO2) to a depth
of 1m and a further 900GtC in the next 1m (refs 6,7). Organic C in
the surface 1m alone is three times the amount of C in atmospheric
CO2. Land-use changes — especially clearing of natural vegetation
to expand the area used for crop production — have signicantly
depleted global soil C stocks and contributed to increased CO2 emis-
sions8,9. It is therefore entirely appropriate to consider opportunities
to slow or reverse this trend through land-management practices.
It has been estimated that a 10% increase in the global soil C stock
would cancel out 30years of anthropogenic CO2 emissions6,7. But
there are numerous reasons to be cautious about the potential
for sequestering C in this way, including misunderstanding of C
ows10,11, limitations to the area of land that can be removed from
agriculture12 and the likelihood that organic C in soil will be sub-
ject to more rapid decomposition at elevated temperatures resulting
from climate change7,13.
Evidence from experiments and modelling
Several widely cited publications have alluded to the potential of
reduced tillage to increase soil organic matter, sequester C, and so
contribute to climate change mitigation14–16. ere is certainly evi-
dence that these practices oen lead to some increase in organic
matter (and hence C) concentration in the 15–20cm layer of top-
soil17 and this has positive benets such as reduced soil erosion
and improved physical properties that increase the extent to which
1Department of Sustainable Soils & Grassland Systems, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ, UK, 2International Maize and
Wheat Improvement Center, Conservation Agriculture Program, Apdo, Postal 6-641 06600 Mexico, Distrito Federal, Mexico, 3International Maize and
Wheat Improvement Center, India Oce, National Agricultural Science Centre Complex, Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110012,
India, 4Agriculture and Food Security Center, The Earth Institute at Columbia University, 61 Route 9W, Lamont Hall, Palisades, New York 10964,
USA, 5Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, PO Box 830915, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583-0915, USA.
*e-mail: david.powlson@rothamsted.ac.uk
PERSPECTIVE
PUBLISHED ONLINE: 30 JULY 2014 | DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2292

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 4 | AUGUST 2014 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 679
soil can absorb rainfall and hold water, making it available for later
crop use5,18–20. In some situations these soil improvements lead to
increased crop yields4,5. But the opposite has also been observed,
with decreased crop yields under no-till in cool moist climates21 and
in tropical environments, aer heavy rains, the surface crop residues
that accompany no-till in conservation agriculture can sometimes
cause waterlogging and reduce yields22.
So what is the evidence that soil organic carbon (SOC) stock
increases substantially under no-till and can be viewed as C seques-
tration and hence a contribution to climate change mitigation?
ere have been several global reviews6,17,23–25 with most of the
experimental evidence derived from the Americas and Australia
where no-till is widely practised on large, mechanized farms. A
key issue is that much, though not all, of the apparent increase in
SOC under no-till results from redistribution of C nearer to the
soil surface and is therefore not a net increase in SOC stock17,26–28.
A comparison of 69 sets of paired data for no-till and conventional
till, where soil had been sampled to at least 40cm depth, showed
no overall increase in SOC stock under no-till: larger stocks in the
surface 20cm compared with conventional tillage were counter-
acted by smaller quantities in the 20–40cm layer under no-till17.
is altered depth distribution is illustrated in Fig.2. In another
global meta-analysis23, SOC stock under conservation agricul-
ture (combination of no-till and residue return — see Box1) was
greater than in conventional practice in about half of the cases but
not dierent in 40%. Similarly, in a meta-analysis of experiments in
Mediterranean climatic conditions25 (mainly in the Mediterranean
basin), it was found that no-till led to small increases in SOC stock
of about 0.3–0.4 Mg C ha–1 yr–1. In an experiment in northern
France, one of the world’s longest-running and closely-monitored
experiments on tillage methods, no-till led to no increase in SOC
stock in 41 years29. us the optimistic assertion in the UNEP1
report, other claims or implications for major soil C gains through
no-till9,14,30,31 and in World Bank documents32 are at variance with
the conclusions from these detailed analyses of a large body of data.
A second issue results from confounding SOC mass versus
concentration. In many studies only the concentration of SOC
(expressed as % C or gCkg–1 soil) in specic soil layers is reported.
For assessing the potential for climate change mitigation through
C sequestration, it is necessary to express SOC as a mass or stock,
expressed in units such as MgCha–1 or GtC within a dened area.
is approach requires measurement of soil bulk density in addition
to SOC concentration, because bulk density is frequently altered by
a change to no-till: crop residues are not mixed in the topsoil layer
as occurs with ploughing or discing, so organic matter concentrates
near the soil surface. is can lead to decreased soil density in the
surface 5cm compared with conventional tillage but much of the
soil prole under no-till till almost invariably has increased bulk
density due to the absence of disturbance. ese trends are well
established33–35 but are oen ignored in published literature com-
paring the eects of tillage methods on soil carbon stocks. Even
when changes in bulk density are accounted for, the interplay of
changed soil bulk density and the strongly developed SOC concen-
tration gradient with depth under no-till leads to erroneous values
for SOC stock if tilled and no-till soil are sampled to equal depth36.
To obtain a valid comparison of SOC stocks, tilled and no-till soil
should be sampled on an ‘equal soil mass’ basis instead of ‘equal
soil depth’34,37. Recently cited examples showed that an apparent
increase in SOC stock when calculated on an equal depth basis can
be decreased by 50% or eliminated completely if recalculated to an
equal soil mass basis37.
A third concern is that C sequestration in agricultural soil may
not be long term. To qualify as climate change mitigation long term
(more than 100years) or permanent removal of CO2 from the atmos-
phere is necessary. e extra carbon under no-till is predominantly
in labile forms that would certainly be decomposed if no-till prac-
tices ceased and a farmer reverted to conventional tillage38–40.
A more general limitation of climate change mitigation through
soil C sequestration is that the soil’s capacity to hold organic
No-till means reduced soil disturbance as an alternative to
traditional cultivation by ploughing or discing, in which the
soil is broken and then further cultivated to prepare a seedbed
for planting crops. In large-scale mechanized farms tillage
operations are performed with heavy machinery pulled by
tractor; in smallholder agriculture in less developed regions it
is generally achieved using a small animal-drawn implement, or
hand-held tools. Where conventional cultivation is eliminated
seeds are sown in a slot cut in the soil, causing minimum soil
disturbance. Large-scale tractor drawn no-till seeders are widely
used, but small-scale no-till seeders are increasingly available for
use with either animal traction or small tractors. In Subsaharan
Africa no till planting may also be achieved by making a hole
for individual seeds, such as those of maize, with a ‘dibble stick’.
Although complete absence of tillage is called no-till or zero
till, reduced tillage or minimum tillage practices are also used
whereby there is an intermediate amount of soil disturbance.
No-till and reduced till sometimes form a component of a suite
of practices termed conservation agriculture (CA), comprising
retention of crop residues on the soil surface and diversication
of cropping systems in addition to reduced or no-till. Here we
specically address no-till agriculture rather than the complete
CA package because this was the focus of the UNEP report
with which we take issue, though in a few instances we refer
to published data for the full set of CA practices where this is
relevant or data is more readily available. For simplicity we use
the term ‘no-till’ throughout to include the range of reduced till
practices, from no-till to minimum till. e term ‘conservation
tillage’ is used by some authors but we avoid this as it can be
ambiguous, either meaning no-till/reduced till or, depending on
the context, it may refer to the no-till component of CA.
Box 1 | What is no-till?
Figure 1 | Mexican farmer practising no-till crop establishment.
Photograph shows use of a ‘swather’ to cut crop residues and distribute
them evenly over the surface of the undisturbed soil. Following this, seeds
will be sown using a no-till seeding machine that cuts a slot for seeds,
causing minimum disturbance of the soil.
MICHELLE DEFREESE / CIMMYT
PERSPECTIVE
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2292

680 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 4 | AUGUST 2014 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange
C is nite. Soil organic carbon does not continue to increase
indenitely and annual rates of accumulation decline as the soil
approaches a new equilibrium, which can take from 25 to 100+
years depending on climate and soil type41–43. Hence, rapid rates
of SOC accumulation sometimes measured in the early years aer
a change in management, such as a shi to no-tillage, cannot be
extrapolated indenitely.
A new assessment but with many caveats
To assess the global potential for no-till practices to sequester
soil carbon and thus mitigate climate change we take a value of
0.3 Mg C ha–1 yr–1 as an annual carbon accumulation rate under
no-till, derived from the reviews cited above. We then apply this
accumulation rate to the global area under cereal crops as these are
the most likely systems where no-till can be practised. We exclude
land in the Americas and Australia because no-till is already widely
practised in these regions — where soils and climate are suitable —
so any climate change mitigation is already accruing. Applying the
value of 0.3MgCha–1yr–1 to the remaining global cereal crop area of
559Mha (ref. 44) gives an annual global rate of SOC accumulation
of 0.17GtC, equal to 0.6GtCO2e. If the calculation is restricted to
the areas under wheat, maize and rice (where no-till can be most
easily practised, though with limitations for rice) the gure becomes
0.4GtCO2eyr–1.
Although these values for CO2 mitigation are smaller than
those proposed in the UNEP report1 (1.1 to 4.3GtCO2e yr–1 ) they
are of the same order so, supercially, could be taken as being in
moderate agreement. However, we consider our estimate of 0.4 to
0.6GtCO2eyr–1 to be highly optimistic for several reasons. First, the
annual rate of accumulation we have used for SOC under no-till is
probably too large. Although it approximates an average for those
situations where increases were measured, there were many cases
where the dierence in SOC stock between no-till and conventional
tillage was very small or zero6,17,23,24,26,27,45. Second, most of the reported
dierences will be overestimated due to the interplay of altered soil
bulk density and the SOC gradient with depth in no-till as discussed
above36,37. ird, in addition to the Americas and Australia, some
form of reduced tillage is already used in substantial areas of crop-
land on large mechanized farms in Europe and Asia, so part of the
‘potential’ SOC gain from no-till is already occurring and cannot be
counted as additional climate change mitigation. But there seems to
be considerable uncertainty about the area now under no-till in large
countries such as Russia, Kazakhstan, China and India46. Fourth, in
some regions, such as northwest Europe, periodic ploughing is com-
monly practised to control the perennial weeds and soil compaction
that are found to result from no-till in the soils and weather con-
ditions of this region42. Periodic tillage also occurs in regions with
wider adoption of no-till such as USA and Australia for a range of
valid agronomic reasons47,48. Periodic cultivation will lead to consid-
erable loss of any SOC accumulated in topsoil during the years of
no-till35,42,47,48 so the carbon sequestration and climate change mitiga-
tion benets are lost or greatly reduced. Finally, there are signicant
barriers to widespread adoption of no-till by resource-poor small-
holder farmers in less developed regions such as Subsaharan Africa
and South Asia due to a range of economic, social and infrastructure
factors that have been widely discussed elsewhere4,5,49–51. us, for
all of these reasons, the apparent potential for increased global SOC
stock from adopting no-till is unlikely to be realized.
In view of these major limitations and uncertainties regarding
the impact and degree of adoption of no-till, we conclude that its
global impact on soil C stocks will be only a fraction of the 0.4 to
0.6Gt CO2e yr–1 we estimate above, but we have insucient infor-
mation available to assess how small a fraction. It is possible that
the total extra soil C accumulation could be close to zero. It is also
known that a change to no-till can inuence emissions of nitrous
oxide, causing either increases or decreases52,53. As nitrous oxide is a
0
20
40
60
80
100
–1 012
(Additional organic C in no-till soil) / (Organic C in conventionally tilled soil)
Depth (cm)
Figure 2 | Changes in soil organic carbon (SOC) content in soil under no-till compared to conventional tillage. Based on a meta-analysis of data
from 43 sites where the two tillage systems had been applied for at least 5years, and in many cases for more than 15years. Large filled squares are
the geometric mean of data in each soil depth; this value was used because the data were not normally distributed. Bars on each side of large squares
represent the range of data from most studies. Values outside this range are shown by small points. An increase in SOC stock in no-till is indicated by an
x axis value greater than 0. A value less than 0 indicates a decrease compared to conventional tillage. The data show an accumulation of organic C in the
uppermost surface layers (0–10cm) but a greater amount of C in conventional tillage at the base of the plough layer (about 25cm). At greater depths
there was no significant dierence between tillage treatments. Redrawn from ref.26.
PERSPECTIVE NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2292

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 4 | AUGUST 2014 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 681
potent GHG with a global warming potential 298 times that of CO2
on a 100year basis54, even a small increase can easily outweigh the
benet of an increase in SOC. Short-term laboratory incubations of
soils from tilled and no-till elds in the UK show there is a poten-
tial for the overall impact to be decreased emissions55, but it is not
known if this is realized under eld conditions.
A regional assessment of the impact of a change to no-till was
made for wheat-based production systems in the Indian states
within the Indo-Gangetic Plain56, the breadbasket of South Asia.
IPCC methodology was used to estimate the potential for climate
change mitigation through soil C sequestration, applying the IPCC
factors to the dierent soils and climatic conditions in the region.
is modelling study led to calculated annual rates of SOC accumu-
lation under no-till in the range 0.2–0.4MgCha–1, broadly consist-
ent with annual rates measured in other regions of the world and
cited above6,24. e calculated annual rate of SOC accumulation in
the entire region was less than 0.01Gt CO2e yr–1 , less than 1% of
India’s total annual GHG emissions. Another modelling study, in
which two well-validated SOC models were applied to situations in
Africa and South America57, showed a smaller rate of SOC accu-
mulation from no-till of only 0.04Mg C ha–1 yr–1 . If this rate was
reproduced globally, total soil C accumulation would be an order of
magnitude less than our estimate.
Many assessments of potential climate change mitigation in agri-
culture rely on the estimate of ‘global technical mitigation’ by Smith
etal.15 of 5.5–6GtCO2eyr–1, with economic potentials in the range
1.5–4.3GtCO2eyr–1 depending on the assumed carbon price. ese
values can be misunderstood to imply a very large mitigation poten-
tial within cropped land. In fact 36% of the total estimate is from the
restoration of degraded land to its natural state and re-ooding of
organic soils that are now under cultivation. Although re-ooding
of organic soils is desirable for carbon sequestration, it is only likely
to be practicable on small areas and the area of productive land
that could be removed from agricultural production is limited as
it represents a trade-o against the goal of global food security58,59.
A further 28% of the total estimate refers to management of graz-
ing land and improved management of livestock and manure to
decrease emissions of nitrous oxide and methane. e mean values
for annual accumulation of SOC from a combination of reduced
tillage and return of crop residues cited in Smith etal.15 are in the
range 0.04 to 0.19MgCha–1yr–1 , depending on climate zone, rather
less than the value of 0.3MgCha–1yr–1 we used in our assessment
above and again indicating that our estimate is highly optimistic.
It is noteworthy that the estimates of soil C increases under no-till
used in the UNEP report rely heavily on Derpsch etal.46. However
this reference contains virtually no data on SOC, being mainly con-
cerned with the areas under no tillage in dierent regions of the
world and opinions, not measured data, about the potential impacts
on soil carbon. e UNEP report1 is also at variance with the more
balanced view of the benets and limitations of conservation agri-
culture (including no-till) expressed by 43 scientists with detailed
knowledge of the topic in the “Nebraska Declaration”60.
Conclusions
e claims made for climate change mitigation through conver-
sion to no-till agriculture in the chapter ‘Policies for Reducing
Emissions from Agriculture’ in the 2013 UNEP report1 are
unrealistic and not based on thorough review of the scientic
literature. Although the authors mention the social, economic
and infrastructural barriers to adoption of no-till, especially
for smallholder farmers, they proceed to ignore these in mak-
ing their assessment. is leads to overstatement of the global
potential for soil C sequestration. ere are some genuine oppor-
tunities for mitigating climate change in the agricultural sector,
largely through improved management of water and nutrients —
especially nitrogen from fertilizer61,62 and manure63,64  — and
through improved feeding practices and management of ruminant
livestock15,65,66.
Table 1 | Some key benefits and limitations or problems observed from a change to no-till cultivation practices.
Benefits Potential problems/limitations
Soil properties, crop growth and environmental impacts
Additional organic C in surface layer—beneficial for soil structure, soil biological
activity and seedling emergence
Only small additional total organic C stock in whole soil profile—limited
benefit for climate change mitigation
More continuous pores allowing increased rainfall infiltration — beneficial for
water availability for crops and climate change adaptation
Increased crop yields in some situations—probably owing to improved soil
conditions and/or water availability
Crop yields decreased or unchanged in some situations, or increases only
emerge after several years. Possibly associated with uneven seedling
emergence or increased soil density causing inhibited root growth in
some environments
Increased soil biological activity–especially if combined with crop
residue retention
Decreased risk of soil erosion—particularly if combined with crop
residue retention
Nitrous oxide emissions may either increase or decrease—with negative or
positive impacts on climate change mitigation
Farm operations
Labour/time saved through elimination of tillage operations May need extra labour or use of herbicides for weed control
Earlier sowing of crop often facilitated, leading to possibility of improved growth
and yield in some environments
In wet climates delayed planting may occur owing to slower soil drying after
rainfall events
Fuel saved through elimination of tillage operations—decreased costs and
CO2 emissions
Suitable machinery for planting may not be available, a particular issue for
resource-poor farmers in less developed countries
Long-term increases in crop yields and farm incomes—especially if combined
with crop residue retention and crop diversification
May be little or no increase in farm income in the short-term, a major
limitation for small-holder farmers in less developed countries
PERSPECTIVE
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2292

682 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 4 | AUGUST 2014 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange
Reduced tillage does lead to a reduction in GHG emissions
associated with tillage operations, whether CO2 from burning
tractor fuel in mechanized agriculture67,68 or production of feed
required for draught animals in smallholder systems69. In the case
of fuel use in mechanized agriculture, although this saving is ben-
ecial for climate change mitigation, a study from the central USA
indicates that its magnitude is small relative to possible changes in
N2O emissions68. For conditions in the USA, total GHG emissions
associated with growing non-legume crops (maize, wheat) are
dominated by those from the production and use of agricultural
lime and nitrogen fertilizer67. erefore although the emissions
saving from reduced use of fuel are signicant and benecial70,
a ‘whole system’ approach emphasizes the great importance and
potential of achieving improved eciency in the use of nitrogen
fertilizer for climate change mitigation in agriculture.
Reduced tillage certainly has a role to play as one of the strat-
egies contributing to global food security and the protection of
soils, and thus to climate change adaptation through building
agricultural systems that are more resilient to climate and weather
variability. In regions where no-till or reduced tillage is appropri-
ate it should be promoted on these grounds, but not on the basis
of equivocal evidence for climate change mitigation. No-till agri-
culture can deliver signicant benets for farmers and sustainabil-
ity in many (though not all) situations (Table 1): reduced GHG
emissions are a small but important additional benet, not the key
policy driver for its adoption.
Received 10 March 2014; accepted 4 June 2014; published
online 30 July 2014
References
1. e Emissions Gap Report 2013 (United Nations Environment
Programme, 2013).
2. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (in the press);
http://mitigation2014.org/report/nal-dra
3. Giller, K.E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M. & Tittonell, P. Conservation agriculture
and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics view. Field Crop. Res.
114, 23–34 (2009).
4. Giller, K.E. etal. A research agenda to explore the role of conservation agriculture
in African smallholder farming systems. Field Crop. Res.
124, 468–472 (2011).
5. Corbeels, M. etal. Understanding the impact and adoption of conservation
agriculture in Africa: a multi-scale analysis. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ.
187, 155–170 (2014).
6. Stockmann, U. etal. e knowns, known unknowns and unknowns of
sequestration of soil organic carbon. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ.
164, 80–99 (2013).
7. Kirschbaum, M.U.F. Will changes in soil organic carbon act as a positive or
negative feedback on global warming? Biogeochemistry
48, 21–51(2000).
8. Paustian, K. etal. Agricultural soils as a sink to mitigate CO2 emissions.
Soil Use Manage. 13, 230–244 (1997).
9. Lal, R. in Handbook of Climate Change and Agroecosystems: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Mitigation (eds Hillel, D & Rosenzweig, C) 287–305
(Imperial College Press, 2011).
10. Schlesinger, W.H. Carbon sequestration in soils: some cautions amidst
optimism. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 82, 121–127 (2000).
11. Powlson, D.S., Whitmore, A.P. & Goulding, K.W.T. Soil carbon sequestration
to mitigate climate change: a critical re-examination to identify the true and the
false. Eur. J.Soil Sci. 62, 42–55 (2011).
12. Jackson, R.B. & Schlesinger, W.H. Curbing the U.S. carbon decit.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 15827–15829 (2004).
13. Jones, C. etal. Global climate change and soil carbon stocks: predictions from
two contrasting models for the turnover of organic carbon in soil.
Glob. Change Biol. 11, 154–166 (2005).
14. Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global change and food security.
Science 304, 1623–1627 (2004).
15. Smith, P. etal. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Phil. Trans. R.Soc. B
363, 789–813 (2008).
16. Corsi, S., Friedrich, T., Kassam, A., Pisante, M. & de Moraes Sà, J. Soil
Organic Carbon Accumulation and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from
Conservation Agriculture: A Literature Review (FAO, 2012).
17. Luo, Z., Wang, E. & Sun, O. Can no-tillage stimulate carbon sequestration in
agricultural soils? A meta-analysis of paired experiments. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ.
139, 224–231 (2010).
18. Ngwira, A.R., ierfelder, C. & Lambert, D.M. Conservation agriculture
systems for Malawian smallholder farmers: long-term eects on
crop productivity, protability and soil quality. Renew. Agr. Food Syst.
28, 350–363 (2013).
19. Verhulst, N. et al. in Advances in Soil Science: Food Security and Soil Quality
(eds Lal, R. & Stewart, B.A.) 137–208 (CRC Press, 2010).
20. Baveye, P.C. et al. From dust bowl to dust bowl: soils are still very much a
frontier in science. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75, 2037–2048 (2011).
21. Ogle, S.M., Swan, A. & Paustian, K. No-till management impacts on crop
productivity, carbon input and soil carbon sequestration. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ.
149, 37–49 (2012).
22. ierfelder, C. et al. Conservation agriculture in Southern Africa: advances in
knowledge. Renew. Agr. Food Syst. http://doi.org/tqr (2014).
23. Govaerts, B. et al. Conservation agriculture and soil carbon sequestration:
between myth and farmer reality. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 28, 97–122 (2009).
24. Virto, I., Burlot, P. & Chenu, C. Carbon input dierences as the main factor
explaining the variability in soil organic C storage in no-tilled compared to
inversion tilled agrosystems. Biogeochemistry 108, 17–26 (2012).
25. Agulilera, E., Lassaletta, L., Gattinger, A. & Gimeno, B. Managing soil carbon
for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping
systems: A meta-analysis. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 168, 25–36 (2013).
26. Angers, D.A. & Eriksen-Hamel, N.S. Full-inversion tillage and organic carbon
distribution in soil proles: a meta-analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
72, 1370–1374 (2008).
27. Baker. J.M., Ochsner, T.E., Venterea, R.T. & Gris, T.J. Tillage and soil
carbon sequestration – What do we really know? Agr. Ecosyst. Environ.
118, 1–5 (2007).
28. Machado, P.L.O.A., Sohi, S.P. & Gaunt, J.L. Eect of no-tillage on turnover of
organic matter in a Rhodic Ferralsol. Soil Use Manage. 19, 250–256 (2003).
29. Dimassi, B. et al. Long-term eects of contrasted tillage and crop
management on soil carbon dynamics during 41 years. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ.
188, 134–146 (2014).
30. Lal, R. Global potential of soil carbon sequestration to mitigate the greenhouse
eect. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 22, 151–184 (2003).
31. Lal, R. Climate-resilient agriculture and soil organic carbon. Indian J.Agron.
58, 440–450 (2013).
32. Climate Smart Agriculture: A Call to Action (e World Bank, 2012);
http://go.nature.com/Ai8K5j
33. Powlson, D.S. & Jenkinson, D.S. A comparison of the organic-matter, biomass,
adenosine-triphosphate and mineralizable nitrogen contents of ploughed and
direct-drilled soils. J.Agr. Sci. 97, 713–721 (1981).
34. Ellert, B.H. & Bettany, J.R. Calculation of organic matter and nutrients
stored in soils under contrasting management regimes. Can. J.Soil Sci.
75, 529–538 (1995).
35. VandenBygaart, A.J. & Kay, B.D. persistence of soil organic carbon aer
ploughing a long-term no-till eld in Southestern Ontario, Canada.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68, 1394–1402 (2004).
36. Lee, J., Hopmans, J.W., Rolston, D.E., Baer, S.G. & Six, J. Determining soil
carbon stock changes: simple bulk density corrections fail.
Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 134, 251–256 (2009).
37. Palm, C., Blanco-Canqui, H., DeClerck, F. & Gatere, L. Conservation
agriculture and ecosystem services: An overview. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ.
187, 87–105 (2013).
38. Bhattacharyya, R., Tuti, M.D., Kundu, S., Bisht, J.K. & Bhatt, J. C.
Conservation tillage impacts on soil aggregation and carbon pools in
a sandy clay loam soil of the Indian Himalayas. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
76, 617–627 (2012).
39. Chivenge, P.P., Mur wira, H. K., Giller, K.E., Mapfumo, P. & Six, J. Long-term
impact of reduced tillage and residue management on soil carbon stabilization:
implications for conservation agriculture on contrasting soil. Soil Till. Res.
94, 328–337 (2007).
40. Yang, X.M. & Kay, B.D. Impacts of tillage practices on total, loose- and
occluded-particulate, and humied organic carbon fractions in soils within a
eld in southern Ontario. Can. J.Soil Sci. 81, 149–156 (2001).
41. Johnston, A.E., Poulton, P.R. & Coleman, K. Soil organic matter: its
importance in sustainable agriculture and carbon dioxide uxes. Adv. Agron.
101, 1–57 (2009).
42. Powlson, D.S. et al. e potential to increase soil carbon stocks through
reduced tillage or organic material additions in England and Wales: a case
st udy. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 146, 23–33 (2012).
43. Gollany, H.T. et al. Predicting agricultural management inuence on long-term
soil organic carbon dynamics: implications for biofuel production. Agron. J.
103, 234 – 246. (2011).
44. F AO S TAT (FAO, 2012); http://go.nature.com/NXk2LC
PERSPECTIVE NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2292

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 4 | AUGUST 2014 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 683
45. De Gryze, S., Lee, J., Ogle, S., Paustian, K. & Six, J. Assessing the potential for
greenhouse gas mitigation in intensively managed annual cropping systems at
the regional scale. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 144, 150–158 (2011).
46. Derpsch, R., Friedrich, T., Kassam, A. & Li, H. Current status of adoption of
no-till farming in the world and some of its main benets. Int. J.Agr. Biol. Eng.
3, 1–26 (2010).
47. Conant, R.T., Easter, M., Paustian, K., Swan, A. & Williams, S. Impact of
periodic tillage on soil C stocks: A synthesis. Soil Till. Res. 95, 1–10 (2007).
48. Kirkegaard, J.A. et al. Sense and nonsense in conservation agriculture:
principles, pragmatism and productivity in Australian mixed farming systems.
Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 187, 133–145 (2014).
49. Andersson, J.A. & D’Souza, S. From adoption claims to understanding farmers
and contexts: A literature review of Conservation Agriculture (CA) adoption
among smallholder farmers in southern Africa. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ.
187, 116–132 (2014).
50. Pannell, D.J., Llewellyn, R.S. & Corbeels, M. e farm-level economics of
conservation agriculture for resource-poor farmers. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ.
187, 52–64 (2014).
51. Tittonell, P. et al. Agroecology-based aggradation-conservation agriculture
(ABACO): Targetting innovations to combat soil degradation and food
insecurity in semi-arid Africa. Field Crop. Res. 132, 168–174 (2012).
52. Rochette, P. No-till only increases N2O emissions in poorly-aerated soils.
Soil Till. Res. 101, 97–100 (2008).
53. Van Kessel, C. et al. Climate, duration, and N placement determine NO
emissions in reduced tillage systems: a meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol.
19, 33–44 (2013).
54. IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
(eds Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J. &
Hanson, C.E) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
55. Mangalassery, S. et al. To what extent can tillage lead to a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions from temperate soils? Sci. Rep. 4, 4586 (2013).
56. Grace, P.R. et al. Soil carbon sequestration and associated economic costs for
farming systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plain: A meta-analysis.
Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 146, 137–146 (2012).
57. Farage, P.K. et al. e potential for soil carbon sequestration in three tropical
dryland farming systems of Africa and Latin America: A modelling approach.
Soil Till. Res. 94, 457–472 (2007).
58. Post, W.M. & Kwon, K.C. Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change:
processes and potential. Glob. Change Biol. 6, 317–327 (2000).
59. Smith, P., Haberl, H., Popp, A., Erb, K.H. & Lauk, C. How much land-based
greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food
security and environmental goals? Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2285–2302 (2013).
60. http://go.nature.com/zP384K
61. Dobermann, A. & Cassman, K.G. Cereal area and nitrogen use are
drivers of future nitrogen fertilizer consumption. Sci. China Ser. C
48, Supplement 1–14 (2005).
62. Zhang, W. et al. New technologies reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
nitrogenous fertilizer in China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA
110, 8375–8380 (2013).
63. Chadwick, D. et al. Manure management: implications for greenhouse gas
emissions. Animal Feed Sci. Technol. 166–167, 514–531 (2011).
64. Petersen, S.O. et al. Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation.
Animal 7 (suppl. 2), 266–282 (2013).
65. Eckard, R.J., Grainger, C. & de Klein, C.A.M. Options for the abatement of
methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: a review. Livest. Sci.
130, 47–56 (2010).
66. Reynolds, C.K., Crompton, L.A. & Mills, J.A.N. Improving the eciency of
energy utilization in cattle. Animal Prod. Sci. 51, 6–12 (2011).
67. West, T.O. & Marland, G. A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon
emissions, and net carbon ux in agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the
United States. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 91, 217–232 (2002).
68. Antle, J.M. & Ogle, S.M. Inuence of soil C, N2O and fuel use on GHG
mitigation with no-till adoption. Climatic Change
111, 609–625 (2012).
69. Baudron, F., Jaleta, M., Okitoi, O. & Tegegn, A. Conservation agriculture in
African mixed crop-livestock systems: expanding the niche.
Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 187, 171–182 (2014).
70. Nelson, R.G. et al. Energy use and carbon dioxide emissions from cropland
production in the United States, 1990–2004. J.Environ. Qual.
38, 418–425 (2009).
Acknowledgements
Parts of this work result from studies on the climate change mitigation impacts of
conservation agriculture conducted by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center funded by the Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security programme of the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.
Additional information
Reprints and permissions information is available online at www.nature.com/reprints.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to D.P.
Competing financial interests
e authors declare no competing nancial interests.
PERSPECTIVE
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2292