ArticlePDF Available

The potential of agricultural land management to contribute to lower global surface temperatures

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) combined with emission reduction is necessary to keep climate warming below the internationally agreed upon 2°C target. Soil organic carbon sequestration through agricultural management has been proposed as a means to lower atmospheric CO2 concentration, but the magnitude needed to meaningfully lower temperature is unknown. We show that sequestration of 0.68 Pg C year⁻¹ for 85 years could lower global temperature by 0.1°C in 2100 when combined with a low emission trajectory [Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 2.6]. This value is potentially achievable using existing agricultural management approaches, without decreasing land area for food production. Existing agricultural mitigation approaches could lower global temperature by up to 0.26°C under RCP 2.6 or as much as 25% of remaining warming to 2°C. This declines to 0.14°C under RCP 8.5. Results were sensitive to assumptions regarding the duration of carbon sequestration rates, which is poorly constrained by data. Results provide a framework for the potential role of agricultural soil organic carbon sequestration in climate change mitigation.
Content may be subject to copyright.
CLIMATOLOGY Copyright © 2018
The Authors, some
rights reserved;
exclusive licensee
American Association
for the Advancement
of Science. No claim to
original U.S. Government
Works. Distributed
under a Creative
Commons Attribution
NonCommercial
License 4.0 (CC BY-NC).
The potential of agricultural land management to
contribute to lower global surface temperatures
Allegra Mayer
1
*, Zeke Hausfather
2
, Andrew D. Jones
3
, Whendee L. Silver
1
Removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO
2
) combined with emission reduction is necessary to keep climate warming
below the internationally agreed upon 2°C target. Soil organic carbon sequestration through agricultural management
has been proposed as a means to lower atmospheric CO
2
concentration, but the magnitude needed to meaningfully
lower temperature is unknown. We show that sequestration of 0.68 Pg C year
1
for 85 years could lower global tem-
perature by 0.1°C in 2100 when combined with a low emission trajectory [Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP)
2.6]. This value is potentially achievable using existing agricultural management approaches, without decreasing land
area for food production. Existing agricultural mitigation approaches could lower global temperature by up to 0.26°C
under RCP 2.6 or as much as 25% of remaining warming to 2°C. This declines to 0.14°C under RCP 8.5. Results were sen-
sitive to assumptions regarding the duration of carbon sequestration rates, which is poorly constrained by data. Results
provide a framework for the potential role of agricultural soil organic carbon sequestration in climate change mitigation.
INTRODUCTION
The uptake of atmospheric carbon (C) by plants and subsequent storage
in soils may be an effective means to lower atmospheric carbon dioxide
(CO
2
) concentrations and to help mitigate climate change. Integrated
assessment models (IAMs), which are used to explore future energy,
land-use, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission scenarios, currently rely
on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as a principal
negative emission technology to reach climate change mitigation targets,
butgenerallydonotconsiderthepossibility of C drawdown and soil
organic C (SOC) sequestration from improved land management (1,2).
Improved land management, without changing land use, may be an ad-
ditional C sequestration option that does not require more land con-
version. Land-use change and poor management practices have resulted
in the loss of more than 130 Pg C from agricultural soil (3), leaving
>1 billion hectares of degraded soil worldwide (4). Site-based studies
and ecosystem-scale models have shown that degraded and managed
agricultural lands have great potential to contribute to increased SOC
sequestration through improved management (57). We define soil C
sequestration as a net increase in SOC storage. Several agricultural
(cropland and grazing land) management practices have been shown
to increase soil C sequestration including organic amendments (810),
cover crops, reduced tillage, improved crop rotations (5,11,12), and im-
proved grazing management (13,14). Citing these proven practices and
others, France and 33 other countries recently instituted a challenge to
increase soil C by 4 per mil per year (15). However, the actual potential
of these practices to contribute to lowering global temperature over time
is poorly understood, despite recent efforts to quantify the amenable
global land area and near-term sequestration rates associated with various
practices (1618). This is primarily due to uncertainty regarding the
maintenance of soil C sequestration rates over time, the C sequestration
capacity of different soils under different managements, and the sen-
sitivity of global temperature changes to CO
2
emission and sequestration.
Here, we use a climate model emulator to translate SOC sequestra-
tion from agricultural management into a range of potential global
mean surface temperature changes over time, consistent with global-
scale outputs from the latest generation of Earth system models (ESMs;
see Materials and Methods and fig. S1). Much of the research to date on
the potential of land usebased SOC sequestration has focused on quan-
tifying current sequestration rates with the implicit assumption that
rates remain constant over time, often assuming a constrained time pe-
riod of 20 to 50 years (12,16). The potential for SOC sequestration to
contribute to a portfolio of mitigation strategies aimed at reducing cli-
mate change depends not only on the rates soon after C sequestering
practices are implemented but also on the time-integrated dynamics of
those rates, that is, how quickly land-use changes can be adopted, how
long they remain in effect, and how SOC stocks change over time (19).
This temporal dynamic is poorly understood but is critical to accurately
estimate the potential for land-based management to slow climate change.
In practice, rates of SOC sequestration are likely to decline over time
at any one site as soils reach new equilibria (20), but the time scale and
shape of these declines are not well constrained by data and are likely to
vary significantly among locations and management practices. To help
bound this uncertainty, we model the effects of SOC sequestration on
global surface temperature with and without consideration of effective
sequestration years, defined as the number of years it would take to
reach the maximum SOC stock (SOC max) at the current potential
sequestration rate (see fig. S3). The SOC max is a concept proposed
by Six et al.(21) and is poorly constrained by data at both site and global
scales. An SOC max provides a theoretical limit on the amount of SOC
storage in soils. As opposed to applying an arbitrary SOC max at a fixed
time period (for example, 20 or 50 years), we model effective sequestra-
tion years as a continuum of time periods required to reach an SOC max
(from 0 to 85 years) for a range of SOC sequestration rates. The current
potential sequestration rate was taken from values reported in the liter-
ature (table S1). Our analysis focuses specifically on the temperature re-
sponse to SOC sequestration. SOC storage is sensitive to a suite of global
change factors such as elevated atmospheric CO
2
concentration and
changes in climate, among others (22,23). These factors will likely have
additional, albeit poorly constrained, impacts on management-induced
SOC sequestration (24). Our goal here is not to quantify the ecological
controls on SOC storage and loss in agricultural ecosystems but to de-
termine the magnitude of SOC sequestration needed at a global scale to
meaningfully affect temperatures and to explore the sensitivity of atmo-
spheric temperature change to a range of possible temporal limits to soil
C sequestration (effective sequestration years).
1
Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of
California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
2
Energy and Resources Group, Uni-
versity of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
3
Climate and Ecosystem
Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94705, USA.
*Corresponding author. Email: allegramayer@berkeley.edu
SCIENCE ADVANCES |RESEARCH ARTICLE
Mayer et al., Sci. Adv. 2018; 4: eaaq0932 29 August 2018 1of8
on August 29, 2018http://advances.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
RESULTS
The model shows that a global SOC sequestration rate of 0.68 Pg C year
1
from 2015 to 2100 would be required to yield a 0.1°C reduction in mean
surface temperature in target year 2100 when coupled with an aggressive
emission reduction scenario [Representative Concentration Pathway
(RCP)2.6;Fig.1].Theseresultsassumed a constant sequestration rate
tothetargetyear.The0.68PgCyear
1
global sequestration rate is at
the low end of the ranges of published estimates, which vary from a
low of 0.36 Pg C year
1
to a high of 1.56 Pg C year
1
(12,17,25,26). There
is considerable uncertainty in the actual time horizon of soil C sequestra-
tion rates within sites, which is likely to vary in response to social, econom-
ic, and biophysical factors (17,27). Few studies have measured long-term
(>20 years) patterns in soil C sequestration with agricultural management,
and those have shown a wide range of continued sequestration rates from
20 to over 150 years (11,2830).Forthisreason,weappliednoapriori
assumption on the time horizon required of soil C sequestration and, in-
stead, modeled a continuum of effective sequestration years at SOC
sequestration rates from 0 to 2.0 Pg C year
1
. It is important to note that,
while the model assumes constant annual rates of SOC sequestration at a
global scale, it does not require constant rates at individual sites.
Results were dependent on the underlying RCP scenario, assuming
3°C warming per doubling of CO
2
. In scenarios with greater emission
trajectories and thus higher atmospheric CO
2
concentrations (RCP 8.5
and RCP 6), greater SOC sequestration rates were required to reach the
same reduction in global surface temperatures due to the logarithmic
nature of CO
2
forcing (31). To achieve a 0.1°C reduction by the year
2100, the RCP 6.0 emission scenario would require a sequestration of
0.98 Pg C year
1
, while 1.25 Pg C year
1
would be required in the RCP
8.5 scenario. Management-based SOC sequestration had the highest
efficacy in the RCP 2.6 scenario, indicating the importance of simulta-
neous emission reductions and SOC sequestration activities resulting
from management. The sensitivity of climate to changes in atmospheric
CO
2
concentration is a key uncertainty in the model and had a large
influence on the temperature effect of C sequestration activities, as sce-
narios with lower climate sensitivity would require increased sequestra-
tion to result in the same temperature reduction (Fig. 1, black bars).
Estimates of climate sensitivity range from 1.5° to 4.5°C warming per
doubling CO
2
, with a median estimate of around 3°C (32).
A synthesis of the literature yielded a mean annual SOC sequestra-
tion potential from agriculture of 0.83 Pg C year
1
, with an upper value
of 1.78 Pg C year
1
(table S1). This value is greater than our estimate of
0.68 Pg C year
1
needed to reduce global temperatures by 0.1°C in 2100
under RCP 2.6 (Fig. 1), and results in a temperature reduction of 0.12°C
in 2100 if sustained for 85 years. Greater SOC sequestration and associated
temperature reduction may potentially be achieved with biochar amend-
ments (see the Supplementary Materials); this approach is less well constrained
than the other approaches and could require at least some utilization of
abandoned lands (10,33),andisthusnotconsideredfurtherhere.
Fig. 1. Impact of constant global rates of C sequestration (Pg C year
1
) on mean surface temperatures by target year (20162100) for a climate sensitivity of
3°C per doubling of atmospheric CO
2
.A 0.1°C reduction is highlighted by white lines. Different graphs indicate different RCP scenarios. Bars show the range of
continued C sequestration rates needed to achieve a 0.1°C reduction in 2050, 2075, and 2100, respectively, under a range of alternative climate sensitivities from 1.5°C
per doubling (upper bound) to 4.5°C per doubling (lower bound) (32). Upward arrows represent low CO
2
sensitivity upper bounds that are higher than the range of C
sequestration rates (0 to 2 Pg C year
1
) considered in this study; error bars are not symmetric around the 0.1°C reduction line due to nonlinearities in CO
2
forcing.
SCIENCE ADVANCES |RESEARCH ARTICLE
Mayer et al., Sci. Adv. 2018; 4: eaaq0932 29 August 2018 2of8
on August 29, 2018http://advances.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
Uncertainties in potential global rates of SOC sequestration with
improved land management can be partitioned into two primary
factors: the range of field-scale SOC sequestration rates reported for each
practice and the global land area over which the technique was considered
effective. Both area and rate assumptions affect the estimate of total SOC
sequestration potential. Area-dependent SOC sequestration rates varied from
0.02 to 1.15 Mg C ha
1
year
1
through improved cropland management
(12,34) and from 0.03 Mg C ha
1
year
1
(35)to0.62MgCha
1
year
1
through improved grazing land management (Table 1) (10,26). The
range of amenable land area varied from approximately 2900 Mha
for grazing land (36) to 400 Mha for cropland (16). We used the bio-
physical potential as the upper limit of SOC sequestration potential and
the minimum reported SOC sequestration estimate as the lower limit
(16,17,37). Nutrient availability at the field scale could theoretically limit
SOC sequestration rates (38,39), although the increase in soil organic
matter content can alleviate at least some of this limitation (18). We note
that agricultural management to increase SOC storage can interact
with soil inorganic C, by increasing storage or facilitating losses to the
atmosphere (40). However, the long-term impacts of SOC sequestration
on soil inorganic C dynamics are poorly understood. Economic con-
straints influenced the uncertainty regarding the amount of land
amenable to improved management (17,37), as well as whether man-
agement strategies could be implemented quickly and maintained over
multiple decades on the available and amenable land area. The manage-
ment practices explored here are likely to simultaneously provide the
co-benefit of improved soil fertility and water holding capacity, thus
increasing the financial desirability for implementation.
The results were sensitive to effective sequestration years (Fig. 2),
with the reduction in warming increasing roughly linearly with the
number of years that soils could continue to sequester C. If we assume
a limited effective sequestration period of 20 years (11,28), irrespective
of the mechanism limiting C storage, then the climate impact in the year
2100 associated with a sequestration rate of 0.83 Pg C year
1
decreased
from 0.12° to 0.03°C under RCP 2.6. If the effective sequestration period
is 50 years (12), then the climate impact in the year 2100 was 0.07°C
under RCP 2.6. These values highlight the potential negative impact
of short effective sequestration years. However, much of the worlds
soils are degraded with regard to SOC (4). Sanderman et al.(3)esti-
matedthat75and133PgChavebeenlostgloballyfromthetop1to
2 m of soil, respectively, due to human land use. If we assume that the
maximum soil C sequestration potential is equivalent to the amount of
C that has been lost from soils due to land use, then soils globally would
have the capacity to store an additional 0.9 Pg C year
1
until 2100 in the
top meter alone and 1.62 Pg C year
1
in the top 2 m. To determine the
impact of effective sequestration years on a given soil C sequestration
rate from any combination of management strategies, we assessed the
effect of the number of effective sequestration years (from 1 to 85) on
the year 2100 global mean surface temperatures for the range of SOC
sequestration rates (0 to 2.0 Pg C year
1
) previously considered (Fig. 2).
In practice, SOC sequestration rates would likely exhibit a gradual de-
clineovertime,andtheshapeofthisdeclinewouldlikelyvarybyland
use, climate, and soil type and is not well understood (41,42). Some
studies have found that SOC stocks reach an asymptote over time (28).
This can be indicative of the development of equilibrium conditions
under a given rate of inputs (11). It has also been hypothesized that
soils may become saturated with regard to SOC, with stocks ceasing
to increase even at increasing input rates (21,41,43,44). Understanding
of the long-term potential for soilsto sequester C is limited, and mech-
anisms such as C stabilization and protection are not consistently
represented in coupled climateC cycle models and major ESMs (45).
Our approach using effective sequestration years allows us to bound the
uncertainty arising from these poorly understood mechanisms.
DISCUSSION
Our results show that existing management strategies on current ag-
ricultural lands have the potential to reduce global temperatures by
the end of the century, sequestering as much as 1.78 Pg C year
1
.This
rate of sequestration could result in warming reductions of as much as
0.26°C in 2100 (assuming an effective sequestration period of at least
85 years). These model results are dependent on the effective seques-
tration years at a global scale and concurrent trends in emission reduc-
tion. The time horizon of SOC sequestration is poorly understood but
is critical for determining the long-term viability of these approaches.
In particular, we note that climate change is a millennial-scale phenom-
enon that stretches beyond the 2100 target. Therefore, the residence time
of organic C in soils, which can affect the long-term efficacy of SOC
sequestration (46), is an additional concern. SOC has the potential to
be stored for millennia [as evidenced by numerous radiocarbon studies
(47,48)], particularly when considering the entire soil depth profile (49),
but this may require a long-term commitment to maintaining soil C in
the future.
Management-based soil C sequestration strategies were significantly
more effective at reducing global warming under RCP 2.6 due to the
atmospheric saturation of CO
2
in high emission scenarios (for example,
in RCP 8.5). This result points to the value of combining aggressive
emission reduction with C removal strategies for climate change mitiga-
tion. The management strategies we evaluated here are different from
the measures assumed in the modeled RCP scenarios (50,51)andthere-
fore provide additional negative emissions if applied simultaneously
with emission reductions. The RCP scenarios can be realized through
many alternative energy, land-use, and land-cover pathways, but current
IAMs largely rely on land-cover change (for example, afforestation) and
C capture and storage technology combined with bioenergy (BECCS) to
reach goals of reduced radiative forcing (50). In contrast, this study
examined the effects of improving management practices on agricultural
Table 1. Published global estimates of management amenable agricultural land and the C sequestration potential of land management techniques.
Management Land type Range of published amenable
land area estimates (Mha)
Range of published potential C
sequestration rates (Mg C ha
1
year
1
)Sources
Improved cropland management Cropland 3801910 0.081.85 (16,17,26,34,36)
Improved grazing land management Grazing land 5002900 0.091.70 (16,17,26,35,36)
SCIENCE ADVANCES |RESEARCH ARTICLE
Mayer et al., Sci. Adv. 2018; 4: eaaq0932 29 August 2018 3of8
on August 29, 2018http://advances.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
land currently in production. We note that future changes in the overall
size of the agricultural land area will affect the area amenable to these
practices and that heavy reliance on bioenergy could compete with some
management activities on cropland or grazing land. This is one reason
that we emphasize consideration of a large range of possible sequestration
rates and time frames. Extensive adoption of land management strategies
could moderately reduce the need for BECCS, which is considered ex-
tensively in most 1.5° and 2°C target scenarios (52). Sequestering an
additional 1.78 Pg C year
1
through BECCS would require devoting
89 Mha of agricultural land to bioenergy production [equivalent to
roughly half of current global maize area harvested (53)]. Growing bio-
energy crops for BECCS on abandoned agricultural land could reduce
the impact on food prices and ecosystem carbon storage (33), although
lower crop yields and economic limitations on the use of abandoned
lands must be accounted for in this context (54).
Our analysis also points to the importance of the long-term potential
for SOC sequestration. The largely underappreciated scientific un-
certainty of effective sequestration years greatly affected the climate
change mitigation potential of land management strategies. A better
understanding of the long-term regional potential of specific man-
agement applications for C sequestration, as well as the controls and
limits on C sequestration, will facilitate better predictions of future land-
atmosphere C cycle feedbacks and also inform the potential for long-
term stabilization of C beyond the 2100 temperature target. As new
strategies are identified for sequestering C through land management
such as repurposing urban and rural nutrient and C waste streams
(7,55), our model provides a framework for translating these into
warming reductions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Climate model
We used a climate model that has been used previously in the literature
(5659) to evaluate the impact of emissions or emission reductions/C
sequestration on future transient climate responses (fig. S1). The model
takes a particular emission scenario for three major GHGs (CO
2
,CH
4
,
and N
2
O) and converts these emissions into atmospheric concentra-
tions, radiative forcing, and transient temperature response. This
emulator model has the benefit of enabling us to consider many possible
permutations of sequestration rates and effective sequestration years
while matching the global mean surface temperature response found
in more complex ESMs such as those included in the Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) featured in the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change 5th Assessment Report (IPCC AR5; fig. S1).
Fig. 2. Impact of SOC sequestration rate (Pg C year
1
) and effective sequestration years on 2100 global mean surface temperature for a climate sensitivity of
3°C per doubling CO
2
with a 0.1°C reduction (highlighted by a white line). A range of potential C sequestration rates are shown in the center of the chart, as well as
their combined potential (black solid). The vertical dashed line shows the mean estimated potential of 0.83 Pg C year
1
for reference.
SCIENCE ADVANCES |RESEARCH ARTICLE
Mayer et al., Sci. Adv. 2018; 4: eaaq0932 29 August 2018 4of8
on August 29, 2018http://advances.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
As a single run of a coupled ESM would take 5 days, it would be pro-
hibitively difficult to perform the 6800 separate combinations of se-
questration rates and effective sequestration years examined in this paper.
To translate the rate of SOC sequestration into a transient global mean
surface temperature response, we perturbed the emission scenarios in the
RCPs by all possible sequestration rates between 0 and 3.0 Pg C year
1
from 2016 to 2100. We used simplified atmospheric lifetime functions for
each GHG (60) to calculate both perturbed and unperturbed atmospheric
CO
2
concentrations, translated these CO
2
concentrations into radiative
forcing (61), and used a continuous diffusion slab ocean model to
estimate transient temperature response (62). Reduction in warming
associated with sequestration rates was calculated from the difference
between the temperatures at a given point in time between the un-
perturbed and perturbed RCP scenario. We did not consider the
potential effects of temperature change on SOC dynamics as this was
beyond the scope of this study. These effects are poorly constrained,
and different studies find both increases and decreases of the SOC stock
with warming (24).
The model approximates the life cycle of each GHG using atmo-
spheric lifetime functions adapted from Joos et al.(60). These model
the percent of a discrete pulse remaining in the atmosphere after tyears
GCO2ðtÞ¼0:217 þ0:259et=172:9þ0:338et=18:51 þ0:186et=1:186
GCH4ðtÞ¼et=10
GN2OðtÞ¼et=114
CH
4
and N
2
O were assumed to have e-foldingtimesof10and114years
(for example, the time scale for a quantity to decrease to 1/eof its
initial value), respectively, while CO
2
reflects more complex C cycle
dynamics. These were converted into atmospheric concentrations
A
gas
(t) by treating each annual emission (or emission reduction) as
a discrete pulse and summing all pulse responses over the time pe-
riod of interest t
AgasðtÞ¼
n
i¼1EiGðttiÞ
where E
i
is the emissions in year iand G(tt
i
) is the fraction of the
gas remaining in the atmosphere after time tt
i
. The mass of each
gas in the atmosphere was converted into concentrations in parts per
million (ppm) [or parts per billion (ppb)] based on their respective
molar mass.
The resulting atmospheric GHG concentrations closely mirror the
results of CMIP5 runs (fig. S2) for the most part, although there is some
divergence in high emissions (RCP 6 and RCP 8.5) scenarios where
changes in ocean chemistry associated with acidification reduce the
airborne fraction in a manner not captured by our emulator model.
For this analysis, however, because we are looking at small perturbations
in the net CO
2
emissions of underlying RCP scenarios, the limitations of
the simple atmospheric carbon cycle model used should be minimal. We
did not explicitly consider feedbacks or interactions between carbon
sequestration and other GHG emissions (methane and nitrous oxide, in
particular). These fluxes were poorly constrained for most of the land uses
considered here, and thus, this was beyond the scope of the current analysis.
To convert atmospheric GHG concentrations into direct radiative
forcing, we used the simplified radiative forcing functions from the
IPCC AR5 (61). These are functional fits to more complicated absorp-
tion models derived from line-by-line radiative transfer functions that
have relatively small uncertainties: about 1% for CO
2
radiative forcing
and 10% for CH
4
radiative forcing calculations (31).
Forcing from a change in atmospheric concentration of CO
2
is
given by
DFCO2¼5:35ln ðPCO2þaCO2Þ
PCO2
Here, PCO2represents the initial concentration of CO
2
in the atmo-
sphere before the industrial era, while aCO2represents the additional
parts per million CO
2
added for any given scenario. For the purposes
of this analysis, PCO2was set to 277 ppm, the approximate value for the
preindustrial era (for example, 1765).
The direct radiative forcing of a given increase of CH
4
and/or
N
2
O in the atmosphere can be approximated by (61)
DFCH4¼0:036ðffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PCH4þbCH4
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PCH4
pÞ
fðPCH4þbCH4;PN2OÞþfðPCH4;PN2OÞ
DFN2O¼0:12ðffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PN2OþbN2O
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PN2O
pÞ
fðPCH4;PN2OþbN2OÞþfðPCH4;PN2OÞ
where
fðM;NÞ¼0:47 lnð1þ2:01105ðMNÞ0:75 þ
5:311015MðMNÞ1:52Þ
In this equation, PCH4is the initial concentration of atmospheric
CH
4
, while bCH4is the addition being evaluated. PN2Ois the initial
concentration of N
2
O, and bN2Ois the addition being evaluated. The
radiative forcing of both CH
4
and N
2
O is a function of the combination
of both, reflecting their interacting atmospheric chemistry. For this anal-
ysis, PCH4was set to 722 ppb and PN2Owas set to 272 ppm, reflecting
preindustrial atmospheric concentrations. f(M,N) is a function that
accounts for the interrelationship between CH
4
and N
2
Oforcing(61).
Radiative forcing was translated into a transient temperature re-
sponse by using a continuous diffusion slab ocean model adapted from
Caldeira and Myhrvold (62) and based on the study of Hansen et al.
(63). It is governed by the equations
DT
t¼kv
2DT
z2
DT
z
z¼0¼ðlDTDFðtÞÞ
pf cp;wkv
z¼0
DTt¼0¼0
j
DT
z
z¼zmax ¼0
where fis the fraction of the earth covered by ocean (0.71), pis the
density of water, c
p
is the heat capacity of water, z
max
is the maximum
ocean depth (4000 m), lis the feedback parameter (DT¼DF
lat equi-
librium, with l=1.25 chosen to reflect a climate sensitivity of 3 C per
doubling CO
2
), and k
v
is the ocean vertical thermal diffusivity (assumed
SCIENCE ADVANCES |RESEARCH ARTICLE
Mayer et al., Sci. Adv. 2018; 4: eaaq0932 29 August 2018 5of8
on August 29, 2018http://advances.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
to be 5.5 × 10
5
m
2
s
1
). The land fraction of the earth was assumed to
follow its equilibrium temperature response, with global surface tem-
peratures being the area-weighted average of the two.
Literature analysis
We used published global estimates of C sequestration potential in
grazing and croplands (table S1). Improved management approaches
included conversion to reduced or conservation till (12,17,64), crop
residue management (64,65), crop rotation and cover crop manage-
ment (12,17,66),optimizedirrigationandnutrient amendment strate-
gies (6,12,17), biochar amendments (10,16,26), increased productivity
of both cropland and grasslands (6,12,17), and improved grazing
management (17,25,26,35,67). To better determine the impact of soil
C sequestration on temperature, we used only estimates of soil C sinks,
and not addition or avoidance of CO
2
emissions due to management.
However, some global estimates account for nitrous oxide emissions
stimulated or avoided due to management, and report C estimates in
units of CO
2
eor C equivalents. We therefore compared global estimates
using the unit CO
2
e-C, which was converted using the ratio of atomic
mass: 1 Pg C = 12/44 × 1 Pg CO
2
e. We reported estimates for biochar
separately because of continuing interest in biochar as a means to se-
quester atmospheric CO
2
despite poorly constrained estimates of its
persistence in soil and notwithstanding its potential land conversion re-
quirements (10,25,33,68). Other management strategies, including
compost and other organic amendments, could also be applied over
large and diverse areas, but large-scale estimates for the potential of C
sequestration from these strategies are lacking.
We differentiated between total soil C sequestration potential and
the combined potential. Total C sequestration potential is an aggrega-
tion of literature estimates of the total global agricultural C sink potential
(12,17,25,26,37). For the combined potential, we summed recent land-
use and management-specific estimates for potential sequestration in
cropland (16,17,26,34,69) and grazing lands (16,17,26,35,69)together
with the available land area given in the same sources for these practices.
We report this combined potential with and without biochar contribu-
tions, as biochar application can be used alone or coupled with other
land-use practices for the same land area. Values given in the text are
means ± 1 SE when multiple estimates were available.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/
content/full/4/8/eaaq0932/DC1
Fig. S1. SimMod emulator climate model transient (solid red) temperature response compared
to CMIP5 multimodel mean (black line) and 2.5 to 97.5% spread (gray area) for each RCP
scenario.
Fig. S2. RCP (solid lines) and SimMod emulator climate model (dashed lines) atmospheric
concentrations of CO
2
,N
2
O, and CH
4
for each scenario (53).
Fig. S3. A schematic illustration of the concept of effective sequestration years (ESY).
Fig. S4. Same as Fig. 2 in the text but with the inclusion of biochar and for a range of
sequestration rates from 0 to 3 Pg C year
1
.
Table S1. Summary of global soil C sequestration potential (Pg C year
1
) by agricultural land
management.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. S. Fuss, J. G. Canadell, G. P. Peters, M. Tavoni, R. M. Andrew, P. Ciais, R. B. Jackson,
C. D. Jones, F. Kraxner, N. Nakicenovic, C. L. Quéré, M. R. Raupach, A. Sharifi, P. Smith,
Y. Yamagata, Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 850853 (2014).
2. L. Clarke, K. Jiang, K. Akimoto, M. Babiker, G. Blanford, K. Fisher-Vanden, J. C. Hourcade,
V. Krey, E. Kriegler, S. Loeschel, Assessing transformation pathways, in Climate Change
2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Working Group III Contribution to the IPCC 5th
Assessment Report, O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, J. C. Minx, E. Farahani,
S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Bruner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann,
J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
3. J. Sanderman, T. Hengl, G. J. Fiske, Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 95759580 (2017).
4. Z. G. Bai, D. L. Dent, L. Olsson, M. E. Schaepman, Proxy global assessment of land
degradation. Soil Use Manag. 24, 223234 (2008).
5. K. Paustian, O. Andrén, H. H. Janzen, R. Lal, P. SMith, G. Tian, H. Tiessen, M. Van Noordwijk,
P. L. Woomer, Agricultural soils as a sink to mitigate CO
2
emissions. Soil Use Manag. 13,
230244 (1997).
6. R. T. Conant, K. Paustian, E. T. Elliott, Grassland management and converstion into
grassland: Effects on soil carbon. Ecol. Appl. 11, 343355 (2001).
7. M. S. DeLonge, R. Ryals, W. L. Silver, A lifecycle model to evaluate carbon sequestration
potential and greenhouse gas dynamics of managed grasslands. Ecosystems 16,
962979 (2013).
8. M. Diacono, F. Montemurro, Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility.
A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 30, 401422 (2010).
9. K. Paustian, W. J. Parton, J. Persson, Modeling soil organic matter in organic-amended
and nitrogen-fertilized long-term plots. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56, 476488 (1992).
10. D. Woolf, J. E. Amonette, F. A. Street-Perrott, J. Lehmann, S. Joseph, Sustainable biochar to
mitigate global climate change. Nat. Commun. 56,19 (2010).
11. T. O. West, W. M. Post, Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop
rotation: A global data analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66, 19301946 (2002).
12. R. Lal, Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123,122
(2004).
13. J. F. Soussana, T. Tallec, V. Blanfort, Mitigating the greenhouse gas balance of ruminant
production systems through carbon sequestration in grasslands. Animal 4,334350 (2010).
14. M. A. Liebig, J. A. Morgan, J. D. Reeder, B. H. Ellert, H. T. Gollany, G. E. Schuman,
Greenhouse gas contributions and mitigation potential of agricultural practices in
northwestern USA and western Canada. Soil Tillage Res. 83,2552 (2005).
15. B. Minasny, B. P. Malone, A. B. McBratney, D. A. Angers, D. Arrouays, A. Chambers,
V. Chaplot, Z.-S. Chen, K. Cheng, B. S. Das, D. J. Field, A. Gimona, C. B. Hedley, S. Y. Hong,
B. Mandal, B. P. Marchant, M. Martin, B. G. McConkey, V. L. Mulder, S. ORourke,
A. C. Richer-de-Forges, I. Odeh, J. Padarian, K. Paustian, G. Pan, L. Poggio, I. Savin,
V. Stolbovoy, U. Stockmann, Y. Sulaeman, C.-C. Tsui, T.-G. Vågen, B. van Wesemael,
L. Winowiecki, Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma 292,5986 (2017).
16. K. Paustian, J. Lehmann, S. Ogle, D. Reay, G. P. Robertson, P. Smith, Climate-smart soils.
Nature 532,4957 (2016).
17. P. Smith, D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F. OMara,
C. Rice, B. Scholes, O. Sirotenko, M. Howden, T. McAllister, G. Pan, V. Romanenkov,
U. Schneider, S. Towprayoon, M. Wattenbach, J. Smith, Greenhouse gas mitigation in
agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 363, 789813 (2008).
18. B.Minasny,D.Arrouays,A.B.McBratney,D.A.Angers,A.Chambers,V.Chaplot,Z.-S.Chen,
K. Cheng, B. S. Das, D. J. Field, A. Gimona, C. Hedley, S. Y. Hong, B. Mandal,
B. P. Malone, B. P. Marchant, M. Martin, B. G. McConkey, V. L. Mulder, S. ORourke,
A. C. Richer-de-Forges, I. Odeh, J. Padarian, K. Paustian, G. Pan, L. Poggio, I. Savin,
V. Stolbovoy, U. Stockmann, Y. Sulaeman, C.-C. Tsui, T.-G. Vågen, B. van Wesemael,
L. Winowiecki, Rejoinder to comments on Minasny et al., 2017 Soil carbon 4 per mille
Geoderma 292, 59-86. Geoderma 309, 124129 (2018).
19. IPCC, in Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change:
Scientific-Technical Analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climae Change, R. T. Watson, M. C. Zinyowera,
R. H. Moss, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996), pp. 1879.
20. R. Ryals, M. D. Hartman, W. J. Parton, M. S. DeLonge, W. L. Silver, Long-term climate
change mitigation potential with organic matter management on grasslands. Ecol. Appl.
25, 531545 (2015).
21. J. Six, R. T. Conant, E. A. Paul, K. Paustian, Review: Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic
matter: Implications for C-saturation of soils. Plant Soil 241, 155176 (2002).
22. B. Bond-Lamberty, A. Thomson, Temperature-associated increases in the global soil
respiration record. Nature 464, 579582 (2010).
23. K. J. van Groenigen, C. W. Osenberg, C. Terrer, Y. Carrillo, F. A. Dijkstra, J. Heath,
M. Nie, E. Pendall, R. P. Phillips, B. A. Hungate, Faster turnover of new soil carbon inputs
under increased atmospheric CO
2
.Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 44204429 (2017).
24. T. Crowther, C. W. Rowe, W. R. Wieder, J. C. Carey, M. B. Machmuller, K. E. O. Todd-Brown,
L. B. Snoek, S. Fang, G. Zhou, S. D. Allison, J. M. Blair, S. D. Bridgham, A. J. Burton,
Y. Carrillo, J. S. Clark, A. T. Classen, F. A. Dijkstra, B. Elberling, B. Emmett, M. Estiarte,
S. D. Frey, J. Guo, J. Harte, L. Jiang, B. R. Johnson, K.-G. Dulay, K. S. Larsen, H. Laudon,
J. M. Lavallee, Y. Luo, M. Lupascu, L. N. Ma, Quantifying global soil C losses in response to
warming. Nature 540, 104108 (2016).
25. P. Smith, Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies.
Glob. Chang. Biol. 22, 13151324 (2016).
26. B. W. Griscom, J. Adams, P. W. Ellis, R. A. Houghton, G. Lomax, D. A. Miteva,
W. H. Schlesinger, D. Shoch, J. V. Siikamäki, P. Smith, P. Woodbury, C. Zganjar,
SCIENCE ADVANCES |RESEARCH ARTICLE
Mayer et al., Sci. Adv. 2018; 4: eaaq0932 29 August 2018 6of8
on August 29, 2018http://advances.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
A. Blackman, J. Campari, R. T. Conant, C. Delgado, P. Elias, T. Gopalakrishna, M. R. Hamsik,
M. Herrero, J. Kiesecker, E. Landis, L. Laestadius, S. M. Leavitt, S. Minnemeyer,
S. Polasky, P. Potapov, F. E. Putz, J. Sanderman, M. Silvius, E. Wollenberg, J. Fargione,
Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 1164511650 (2017).
27. M. Bustamante, C. Robledo-Abad, R. Harper, C. Mbow, N. H. Ravindranat, F. Sperling,
H. Haberl, S. Pinto Ade, P. Smith, Co-benefits, trade-offs, barriers and policies for
greenhouse gas mitigation in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector.
Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 32703290 (2014).
28. T. O. West, G. Marland, A. W. King, W. M. Post, A. K. Jain, K. Andrasko, Carbon
management response curves: Estimates of temporal soil carbon dynamics.
Environ. Manage. 33, 507518 (2004).
29. A. E. Johnston, P. R. Poulton, K. Coleman, Chapter 1 soil organic matter: Its
importance in suitable agriculture and carobin dioxide fluxes. Adv. Agron. 10 1,
157 (2009).
30. D. S. Powlson, A. P. Whitmore, K. W. T. Goulding, Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate
climate change: A critical re-examination to identify the true and the false. Eur. J. Soil Sci.
62,4255 (2011).
31. G. Myhre, E. J. Highwood, K. P. Shine, F. Stordal, New estimates of radiative forcing due to
well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 27152718 (1998).
32. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, Contribution of
Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change,Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri, L. A. Meyer, Eds.
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014).
33. J. E. Campbell, D. B. Lobell, R. C. Genova, C. B. Field, The global potential of bioenergy on
abandoned agriculture lands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 57915794 (2008).
34. R. J. Zomer, D. A. Bossio, R. Sommer, L. V. Verchot, Global sequestration potential of
increased organic carbon in cropland soils. Sci. Rep. 7, 15554 (2017).
35. B. B. Henderson, B. B. Henderson, P. J. Gerber, T. E. Hilinski, A. Falcucci, D. S. Ojima,
M. Salvatore, R. T. Conant, Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of the worlds
grazing lands: Modeling soil carbon and nitrogen fluxes of mitigation practices.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 207,91100 (2015).
36. R. Lal, Managing soils and ecosystems for mitigating anthropogenic carbon emissions
and advancing global food security. Bioscience 60, 708721 (2010).
37. P. Smith, D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F. OMara,
C. Rice, B. Scholes, O. Sirotenko, Agriculture, in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, L. A. Meyer, Eds.
(Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
38. J. W. van Groenigen, C. van Kessel, B. A. Hungate, O. Oenema, D. S. Powlson,
K. J. van Groenigen, Sequestering soil organic carbon: A nitrogen dilemma.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 47384739 (2017).
39. W. de Vries, Soil carbon 4 per mille: A good initiative but lets manage not only the soil
but also the expectations: Comment on Minasny et al. (2017) Geoderma 292: 5986.
Geoderma 309, 111112 (2018).
40. J. Sanderman, Can management induced changes in the carbonate system drive soil
carbon sequestration? A review with particular focus on Australia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
155,7077 (2012).
41. C. E. Stewart, K. Paustian, R. T. Conant, A. F. Plante, J. Six, Soil carbon saturation:
Concept, evidence and evaluation. Biogeochemistry 86,1931 (2007).
42. J. M. Kimetu, J. Lehmann, J. M. Kinyangi, C. H. Cheng, J. Thies, D. N. Mugendi, A. Pell, Soil
organic C stabilization and thresholds in C saturation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41, 21002104
(2009).
43. K. M. Goh, Carbon sequestration and stabilization in soils: Implications for soil
productivity and climate change. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 50, 467476 (2004).
44. T. O. West, J. Six, Considering the influence of sequestration duration and carbon
saturation on estimates of soil carbon capacity. Clim. Change 80,2541 (2007).
45. Y.Luo,A.Ahlström,S.D.Allison,N.H.Batjes,V.Brovkin,N.Carvalhais,A.Chappell,
P.Ciais,E.A.Davidson,A.Finzi,K.Georgiou,B.Guenet,O.Hararuk,J.W.Harden,Y.He,
F. Hopkins, L. Jiang, C. Koven, R. B. Jackson, C. D. Jones, M. J. Lara, J. Liang,
A. D. McGuire, W. Parton, C. Peng, J. T. Randerson, A. Salazar, C. A. Sierra,
M. J. Smith, H. Tian, K. E. O. Todd-Brown, M. Torn, Kees J. van Groenigen, Y. P. Wang,
T.O.West,Y.Wei,W.R.Wieder,J.Xia,X.Xu,X.Xu,T.Zhou,Towardmorerealistic
projections of soil carbon dynamics by Earth system models. Global Biogeochem.
Cycles 30,4056 (2015).
46. B. Mackey, I. C. Prentice, W. Steffen, J. I. House, D. Lindenmayer, H. Keith, S. Berry,
Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation
policy. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 552557 (2013).
47. S. Trumbore, Age of soil organic matter and soil respiration: Radiocarbon constraints on
belowground C dynamics. Ecol. Appl. 10, 399411 (2000).
48. J. Sanderman, C. Creamer, W. T. Baisden, M. Farrell, S. Fallon, Greater soil carbon
stocks and faster turnover rates with increasing agricultural productivity. SOIL 3,131
(2017).
49. J. A. Mathieu, C. Hatté, J. Balesdent, É Parent, Deep soil carbon dynamics are driven more
by soil type than by climate: A worldwide meta-analysis of radiocarbon profiles.
Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 42784292 (2015).
50. V. K. Arora, J. F. Scinocca, G. J. Boer, J. R. Christian, K. L. Denman, G. M. Flato, V. V. Kharin,
W. G. Lee, W. J. Merryfield, Carbon emission limits required to satisfy future
representative concentration pathways of greenhouse gases. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38
(2011).
51. D. L. Hartmann, A. M. G. K. Tank, M. Rusticucci, IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Climate
Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (IPCC, 2014), pp. 3139.
52. P.Smith,S.J.Davis,F.Creutzig,S.Fuss,J.Minx,B.Gabrielle,E.Kato,R.B.Jackson,
A.Cowie,E.Kriegler,D.P.vanVuuren,J.Rogelj,P.Ciais,J.Milne,J.G.Canadell,
D.McCollum,G.Peters,R.Andrew,V.Krey,G.Shrestha,P.Friedlingstein,
T.Gasser,A.Grübler,W.K.Heidug,M.Jonas,C.D.Jones,F.Kraxner,E.Littleton,
J.Lowe,J.R.Moreira,N.Nakicenovic,M.Obersteiner,A.Patwardhan,M.Rogner,
E.Rubin,A.Sharifi,A.Torvanger,Y.Yamagata,J.Edmonds,C.Yongsung,
Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO
2
emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6,
4250 (2016).
53. FAOSTAT, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Database (2018);
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home.
54. M. Nijsen, E. Smeets, E. Stehfest, D. P. van Vuuren, An evaluation of the global
potential of bioenergy production on degraded lands. GCB Bioenergy. 4,
130147 (2011).
55. J. J. Owen, W. J. Parton, W. L. Silver, Long-term impacts of manure amendments on
carbon and greenhouse gas dynamics of rangelands. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 45334547
(2015).
56. N. P. Myhrvold, K. Caldeira, Greenhouse gases, climate change and the transition from
coal to low-carbon electricity. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 014019 (2012).
57. X. Zhang, N. P. Myhrvold, Z. Hausfather, K. Caldeira, Climate benefits of natural gas as a
bridge fuel and potential delay of near-zero energy systems. Appl. Energy 167,
317322 (2016).
58. X. Zhang, N. P. Myhrvold, K. Caldeira, Key factors for assessing climate benefits of natural
gas versus coal electricity generation. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 114022 (2014).
59. Z. Hausfather, Bounding the climate viability of natural gas as a bridge fuel to displace
coal. Energy Policy 86, 286294 (2015).
60. F. Joos, M. Bruno, R. Fink, U. Siegenthaler, T. F. Stocker, C. L. Quéré, J. L. Sarmiento,
An efficient and accurate representation of complex oceanic and biospheric models of
anthropogenic carbon uptake. Tellus B: Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 48, 397417 (1996).
61. G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch,
J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura,
H. Zhang, Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing, 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, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner,
M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Doschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, P.M. Midgley, Eds. (Cambridge
Univ. Press, 2013), pp. 659740.
62. K. Caldeira, N. P. Myhrvold, Projections of the pace of warming following an abrupt
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034039
(2013).
63. J. Hansen, A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy, J. Lerner, Climate
sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mecahnisms, in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity,
J. E. Hansen, T. Takahashi, Eds. (American Geophysical Union, 1984), pp. 130163.
64. R. Lal, J. P. Bruce, The potential of world cropland soils to sequester C and mitigate the
greenhouse effect. Environ. Sci. Policy 2, 177185 (1999).
65. C. Liu, M. Lu, J. Cui, B. Li, C. Fang, Effects of straw carbon input on carbon dynamics in
agricultural soils: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 13661381 (2014).
66. C. Poeplau, A. Don, Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover
cropsA meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 200,33
41 (2015).
67. R. T. Conant, C. E. P. Cerri, B. Osborne, K. Paustian, Grassland management impacts on soil
carbon stocks: A new synthesis. Ecol. Appl. 27, 662668 (2016).
68. S. Liu, Y. Zhang, Y. Zong, Z. Hu, S. Wu, J. Zhou, Y. Jin, J. Zou, Response of soil carbon
dioxide fluxes, soil organic carbon and microbial biomass carbon to biochar amendment:
A meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy 8, 392406 (2016).
69. R. Lal, Beyond Copenhagen: Mitigating climate change and achieving food security
through soil carbon sequestration. Food Security 2, 169177 (2010).
Acknowledgments: We thank P. Smith for advice, support, and help with data
interpretation. We also thank B. Collins for supporting the conception of the project, I. Fung
for her challenge and friendly review, and J. Wick for encouragement. Funding: We thank the
Rathmann Family Foundation for funding this project. This work was supported in part by the
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research
under contract DE-AC02-05CH11231. Author contributions: A.M. contributed to conceptual
development, conducted literature review, made figures, and led the writing effort. Z.H.
contributed to conceptual development, updated and ran the carbon-climate model, made
SCIENCE ADVANCES |RESEARCH ARTICLE
Mayer et al., Sci. Adv. 2018; 4: eaaq0932 29 August 2018 7of8
on August 29, 2018http://advances.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
figures, and contributed to writing. A.D.J. and W.L.S. guided conceptual development and
contributed to writing. W.L.S. conceived the project. Competing interests: The authors declare
that they have no competing interests. Data and materials availability: The simple CMIP
emulator model used in this analysis along with the underlying RCP scenario emissions
are available on GitHub (https://github.com/hausfath/SimMod). All data needed to evaluate the
conclusions in the paper are present in the paper and/or the Supplementary Materials.
Additional data related to this paper may be requested from the authors.
Submitted 29 September 2017
Accepted 23 July 2018
Published 29 August 2018
10.1126/sciadv.aaq0932
Citation: A. Mayer, Z. Hausfather, A. D. Jones, W. L. Silver, The potential of agricultural land
management to contribute to lower global surface temperatures. Sci. Adv. 4, eaaq0932 (2018).
SCIENCE ADVANCES |RESEARCH ARTICLE
Mayer et al., Sci. Adv. 2018; 4: eaaq0932 29 August 2018 8of8
on August 29, 2018http://advances.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
temperatures
The potential of agricultural land management to contribute to lower global surface
Allegra Mayer, Zeke Hausfather, Andrew D. Jones and Whendee L. Silver
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaq0932
(8), eaaq0932.4Sci Adv
ARTICLE TOOLS http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaaq0932
MATERIALS
SUPPLEMENTARY http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2018/08/27/4.8.eaaq0932.DC1
REFERENCES http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaaq0932#BIBL
This article cites 60 articles, 3 of which you can access for free
PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions
Terms of ServiceUse of this article is subject to the
registered trademark of AAAS. is aScience Advances Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. The title
York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. 2017 © The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American
(ISSN 2375-2548) is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 NewScience Advances
on August 29, 2018http://advances.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
... While global agriculture and related land use emissions account for 17% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [5], the implementation of agricultural conservation practices that sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and store it as biomass and soil organic carbon (SOC) and reduce GHG emissions can substantially contribute to climate change mitigation [12]. As 98% of global cropland is potentially available for enhanced carbon sequestration through farming conservation practices [35], croplands have a strong potential to contribute to climate change mitigation and food security. ...
... These figures are only a fraction of the potential 250 million mtCO 2 e reported by the National Academy of Sciences [14], suggesting that failing to incorporate economic variables and agronomic differences across counties into the analysis could result in tremendous overestimation of the likely sequestration. Furthermore, our estimates represent between 0.7 and 3.0% of the minimum annual target sequestration of 2.49 billion mtCO 2 e (0.68 billion mt of carbon) 12 necessary to reduce global temperature by 0.1 °C by 2100 under an aggressive emissions reduction scenario [12]. The extra actual carbon sequestered in Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 1 at the national level through both no-till and cover crop practices underscores the higher effectiveness to generate carbon credits of a per-outcome payment regime than a per-practice payment regime. ...
Article
Full-text available
U.S. agricultural producers are increasingly able to participate in private voluntary carbon initiatives that compensate their efforts to sequester CO2, reduce GHG emissions, and provide ecosystem services through eligible conservation practices. This study examines the potential effects of alternative private payment regimes (per practice vs. per output), prices paid to farmers relative to out-of-pocket costs (low vs. high), and the availability of information on CO2 sequestration (limited vs. full), on the adoption of cover crops and no-till in the United States, the resulting CO2 sequestration, and changes in farmers’ net returns. The analysis relies on a highly stylized model of heterogeneous farms calibrated with county-level agronomic data, and simulated for current estimates of GHG impacts of cover crop planting and no-till under different scenarios. Our results indicate that agricultural carbon markets can be profitable for U.S. farmers, although with substantial geographic variability, and that annual carbon sequestration could range between 17 and 75 million mtCO2e. Payments per output would incentivize higher carbon sequestration than payments per practice, but the former regime would be less favored by farmers as a unified group than the latter (due to lower aggregate net returns). However, if operators of farms with high carbon sequestration potential could decide the payment regime to be implemented, they would choose the payment per output regime (due to higher net returns per enrolled hectare). Total projected net changes in GHGs under payments per practice, based solely on county-average net GHG effects of cover crops and no-till, over-estimate actual total GHG sequestration (based on the entire distribution of net effects by county) by 2.1 and 14.2 million mtCO2e, or 18% and 21%, respectively.
... The majority of GHG emissions reductions must come from the energy, industrial, and transportation sectors, but LULCC will play a key role because the land sector produces ∼22% of global GHG emissions (Pathak et al 2022). Land-based strategies for GHG emissions reduction have been explored at the global (Griscom et al 2017, Mayer et al 2018, national (Fargione et al 2018, Drever et al 2021, and subnational scales (Cameron et al 2017, and have been included in all scenarios targeting the 1.5 • C warming limit. Land-based emissions reductions can be achieved through avoidance or through management practices that reduce emissions or sequester carbon. ...
Article
Full-text available
Stabilizing climate requires reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in land or ocean systems. Soil management practices can reduce GHG emissions or sequester atmospheric CO2 into inorganic and organic forms. However, whether soil carbon strategies represent a viable and impactful climate mitigation pathway is uncertain. A specific question concerns the role that land-management practices and soil amendments can play in realizing California’s ambition for carbon neutrality by 2045. Here we examine the carbon flux impacts of soil conservation (i.e., compost, reduced tillage, cover crop) and enhanced silicate rock weathering (EW) practices at different areal extents of implementation in cropland, grassland, and savanna in California under two climate change cases. We show that with implementation areas of 15% or 50% of private cultivated land, grassland, and savanna in California, soil conservation practices alone can contribute 1.40.72.1 % ( −1.8−0.9−2.7 Mt CO2eq y⁻¹) and 4.62.36.9 % ( −6.0−3.0−8.9 Mt CO2eq y⁻¹) of the additional emissions reduction needed (beyond previous targets) to meet the 2045 net neutrality goal (−129.3 Mt CO2eq y⁻¹), respectively, on an average annual basis, including climate uncertainty. Including EW in these scenarios increases the total contributions of management practices to 4.12.55.6 % ( −5.2−3.2−7.3 Mt CO2eq y⁻¹) and 13.58.218.6 % ( −17.5−10.7−24.2 Mt CO2eq y⁻¹), respectively, of this reduction. This highlights that the extent of implementation area is a major factor in determining benefits and that EW has the potential to make a real contribution to net reduction targets. Results are similar across climate cases, indicating that contemporary field data can be used to make future projections. With EW there remains mechanistic uncertainties, however, such as rock dissolution rate and environmental controls on weathering products, which require additional field research to improve understanding of the technological efficacy of this approach for California’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal.
... In a study in the high plains of the USA, grasslands were observed to increase soil organic C sequestration under both moderate (RCP 4.5) and severe warming (RCP 8.5) even by 2100 AD, while wheat field crop rotations realized C increase only under moderate warming (RCP 4.5) by 2050 (Robertson et al., 2018). One study estimated that C sequestration of 0.68 Pg C year −1 for 85 continuous years is capable of reducing global temperature by 0.1 °C in 2100 under RCP 2.6 (Mayer et al., 2018). Global water erosion is projected to increase by 30-66% (Borrelli et al., 2020). ...
Chapter
Understanding the interactions between climate change and various soil processes helps in understanding the impacts and developing strategies to adapt and mitigate climate change. In this chapter, we have described a brief overview of climate change and greenhouse gas concentrations, as well as different representative concentration pathways (RCP) scenarios and changes in soil processes on a global scale. We have also described the impacts of climate change on various soil processes, including soil formation, clay mineral transformation, soil erosion, structural degradation, hydrological processes, soil air, and thermal regimes, nutrient cycling, ion exchange, nutrient availability, acidification, salinization, alkalinization, microbial changes, and rhizosphere chemistry. In addition, we also described the effects of climate change on seven soil functions and soil processes such as C sequestration, aggregation, porosity, humification, podsolization, translocation of C deep into the soil profile, soil water regime, and nitrification–denitrification.
... The SOM helps to improve soil structure and increases soil porosity and waterholding capacity (Libohova et al., 2018). It also serves as an important sink of C that can help mitigate the negative impacts of climate change (Mayer et al., 2018). In addition, SOM is positively correlated with crop yield at both plot and regional scales, especially under drought conditions (Kane et al., 2021;Oldfield et al., 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
Cover crops have been widely adopted to improve soil functions in agroecosystems, including providing carbon (C) inputs that can contribute to soil C sequestration. However, soil C changes may be slow after introducing cover crops in unfavorable environments for soil organic matter (SOM) accumulation, like the Southeast United States subtropical region characterized by a warm humid climate, and coarse‐textured soils. We examined labile C pools as potential early indicators of SOM changes after cover crop introduction in a sandy subtropical vegetable production system. We compared the effects of four cover crop monocultures namely two grasses [sorghum sudangrass, Sorghum bicolor × S bicolor var. Sudanese and pearl millet, Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.], two legumes (sunn hemp, Crotalaria juncea L., and cowpea, Vigna unguiculata Walp.), and one four‐species mixture on soil organic carbon pools for 3 years. Soil samples were collected at a 15‐cm depth before cover crop planting and post cover crop incorporation to assess changes in SOM, permanganate‐oxidizable carbon (POX‐C), mineralizable carbon (Cmin), and water extractable organic carbon (WEOC). The incorporation of cover crops increased concentrations of SOM, POX‐C, and Cmin in year 3 relative to their baseline values in year 1. Concentration of SOM increased by 0.24 ± 0.05% (mean ± standard error) after 3 years of cover crop management. However, concentrations of WEOC significantly decreased in years 2 and 3 relative to the baseline. Monocultures and the mixture had similar effects on measured C pools, likely due to comparable aboveground biomass production. Our findings highlight the potential of POX‐C and Cmin as early indicators of SOM accumulation driven by cover crops use, as well as the capacity of cover crops to build SOM in similar subtropical systems and coarser textured soils.
... For example, under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Representative Concentration Pathway 2.6 (ref. 4), current agricultural mitigation practices to increase soil organic carbon sequestration may decrease global temperature by up to 0.26 °C, potentially also favouring the soil water holding capacity and fertility 84 . Moreover, irrigation can offset crop production loss due to global warming projected by the 2050s, although a >5% expansion of irrigation areas in warm regions is needed to fully counteract losses 85 . ...
Article
Air pollution and climate change are tightly interconnected and jointly affect field crop production and agroecosystem health. Although our understanding of the individual and combined impacts of air pollution and climate change factors is improving, the adaptation of crop production to concurrent air pollution and climate change remains challenging to resolve. Here we evaluate recent advances in the adaptation of crop production to climate change and air pollution at the plant, field and ecosystem scales. The main approaches at the plant level include the integration of genetic variation, molecular breeding and phenotyping. Field-level techniques include optimizing cultivation practices, promoting mixed cropping and diversification, and applying technologies such as antiozonants, nanotechnology and robot-assisted farming. Plant- and field-level techniques would be further facilitated by enhancing soil resilience, incorporating precision agriculture and modifying the hydrology and microclimate of agricultural landscapes at the ecosystem level. Strategies and opportunities for crop production under climate change and air pollution are discussed. ***Full-text access to a view-only version of the paper @ https://rdcu.be/doHy9
... For example, what is the optimal amount and configuration of noncrop land for hosting beneficial arthropods, for pollination and pest control? Similarly, how can we maintain agricultural production while also storing soil carbon or increasing surface albedo (Bai et al., 2019;Mayer et al., 2018)? These questions motivate a broader rethinking of agriculture beyond simple profit-maximization, and towards diversified farming landscapes that manage ecosystem services at both field-and landscape-scales (Kremen et al., 2012). ...
Article
Full-text available
Ecosystem services can maintain or increase crop yield in agricultural systems, but data to support management decisions are expensive and time‐consuming to collect. Furthermore, relationships derived from small‐scale plot data may not apply to ecosystem services operating at larger spatial scales (fields and landscapes). Precision yield data (PYD) can be used to improve the accuracy and geographic range of ecosystem service studies but have been underused in previous studies: out of 370 literature records, we found that less than 2% of all records were used to study biotic or landscape effects on yield. We argue that this is likely due to low data accessibility and a lack of familiarity with spatial data analysis. We provide examples of analysis using simulated PYD, and outline two case studies of ecosystem services using PYD. Ecologists and agronomists should consider using PYD more broadly, as it can be used to test hypotheses about ecosystem services across multiple spatial scales, and could be used to inform the design of multifunctional farming landscapes.
Article
Full-text available
Composting organic matter can lower the global warming potential of food and agricultural waste and provide a nutrient-rich soil amendment. Compost applications generally increase net primary production (NPP) and soil water-holding capacity and may stimulate soil carbon (C) sequestration. Questions remain regarding the effects of compost nitrogen (N) concentrations and application rates on soil C and greenhouse gas dynamics. In this study, we explored the effects of compost with different initial N quality (food waste versus green waste compost) on soil greenhouse gas fluxes, aboveground biomass, and soil C and N pools in a fire-impacted annual grassland ecosystem. Composts were applied annually once, twice, or three times prior to the onset of the winter rainy season. A low-intensity fire event after the first growing season also allowed us to explore how compost-amended grasslands respond to burning events, which are expected to increase with climate change. After four growing seasons, all compost treatments significantly increased soil C pools from 9.5 ± 0.9 to 30.2 ± 0.7 Mg C ha⁻¹ (0–40 cm) and 19.5 ± 0.9 to 40.1 ± 0.7 Mg C ha⁻¹ (0–40 cm) relative to burned and unburned controls, respectively. Gains exceeded the compost-C applied, representing newly fixed C. The higher N food waste compost treatments yielded more cumulative soil C (5.2–10.9 Mg C ha⁻¹) and aboveground biomass (0.19–0.66 Mg C ha⁻¹) than the lower N green waste compost treatments, suggesting greater N inputs further increased soil stocks. The three-time green waste application increased soil C and N stocks relative to a single application of either compost. There was minimal impact on net ecosystem greenhouse gas emissions. Aboveground biomass accumulation was higher in all compost treatments relative to controls, likely due to increased water-holding capacity and N availability. Results show that higher N compost resulted in larger C gains with little offset from greenhouse gas emissions and that compost amendments may help mediate effects of low-intensity fire by increasing fertility and water-holding capacity.
Chapter
Full-text available
Zusammenfassung Aufgrund der Größe der betroffenen Landflächen, den bei ihrer Nutzung emittierten und sequestrierten Treibhausgasen (THG) und des teilweise ungünstigen Zustands von Böden in Hinblick auf ihren Gehalt an organisch gebundenem Kohlenstoff (C) kommt der Landnutzung a priori eine wichtige Rolle bei Mitigationsbemühungen zu. Zur Minderung des Klimawandels ist eine Verringerung der atmosphärischen CO2-Konzentration erforderlich, die durch eine Abnahme der THG-Emissionen und durch Aufnahme und langfristige Speicherung von atmosphärischem Kohlenstoff in Biomasse und Boden erreicht werden kann (Chenu et al., 2019; Mayer et al., 2018; Paustian et al., 2016; Vos et al., 2018). Der Erhaltung bzw. idealerweise Erhöhung der organischen Substanz des Bodens durch geeignete Bodenschutzmaßnahmen kommt entscheidende Bedeutung zu.
Article
No-till system (NTS) is a way of soil management that involves techniques recommended to increase agricultural land productivity. However, its use also generates secondary impacts on the management of natural areas. In this case, a more robust scientific evaluation is needed. This article analyzes the causal relationship between the NTS adoption and its effects on land use in Brazil, paying particular attention to its impacts on natural and cultivated areas. This discussion of impacts of agricultural practices gains importance when we analyze the Brazilian case where there is an economically relevant agricultural sector and need to preserve tropical natural areas. Our paper innovates by seeking causation effects between NTS adoption and land use in Brazil, using the statistical approach of Spatial Propensity Score Matching (Spatial-PSM). It uses a small set of assumptions in which to robustly estimate causal effects in experiments with observed data. Our statistical results show that the adoption of NTS had a positive effect on the natural (0.338; p-value < 0.05) and cultivated agricultural (0.214; p-value < 0.05) areas of the treated municipalities. The evidence from this case study indicates that soil management technology can lead to environmental preservation, confirming Borlaug’s hypothesis. We believe that the recovery of eroded land and increased agricultural productivity may partially explain these results.
Article
Full-text available
Compost amendment to rangelands is a proposed nature‐based climate solution to increase plant productivity and soil carbon sequestration. However, it has not been evaluated using quasicontinuous ecosystem‐scale measurements. Here, we present the first study to utilize eddy covariance and footprint partitioning to monitor carbon exchange in a grassland with and without compost amendment, monitoring for 1 year before and 1 year after treatment. Compost amendment to an annual California grassland was found to enhance net ecosystem removal of carbon. Our study confirmed that compost‐amended grasslands, similar to nonamended grasslands, are net carbon sources to the atmosphere; however, the amendment appears to be slowing down the rate at which these ecosystems lose carbon by 0.71 Mg C ha⁻¹ per growing season. Digital repeated imagery of the canopy revealed that compost‐amended grasslands experienced an earlier green‐up, resulting in an overall longer growing season by >60 days. Notably, we did not detect significantly higher amounts of soil carbon in compost‐amended soils. High variability in soil carbon demands greater sampling replication in future studies. A longer growing season and higher productivity are hypothesized to be a result of greater availability of macronutrients and micronutrients in the top layer of soil (specifically nitrogen, phosphorus, and zinc).
Article
Full-text available
The role of soil organic carbon in global carbon cycles is receiving increasing attention both as a potentially large and uncertain source of CO2 emissions in response to predicted global temperature rises, and as a natural sink for carbon able to reduce atmospheric CO2. There is general agreement that the technical potential for sequestration of carbon in soil is significant, and some consensus on the magnitude of that potential. Croplands worldwide could sequester between 0.90 and 1.85 Pg C/yr, i.e. 26–53% of the target of the “4p1000 Initiative: Soils for Food Security and Climate”. The importance of intensively cultivated regions such as North America, Europe, India and intensively cultivated areas in Africa, such as Ethiopia, is highlighted. Soil carbon sequestration and the conservation of existing soil carbon stocks, given its multiple benefits including improved food production, is an important mitigation pathway to achieve the less than 2 °C global target of the Paris Climate Agreement.
Article
Full-text available
Significance Most nations recently agreed to hold global average temperature rise to well below 2 °C. We examine how much climate mitigation nature can contribute to this goal with a comprehensive analysis of “natural climate solutions” (NCS): 20 conservation, restoration, and/or improved land management actions that increase carbon storage and/or avoid greenhouse gas emissions across global forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands. We show that NCS can provide over one-third of the cost-effective climate mitigation needed between now and 2030 to stabilize warming to below 2 °C. Alongside aggressive fossil fuel emissions reductions, NCS offer a powerful set of options for nations to deliver on the Paris Climate Agreement while improving soil productivity, cleaning our air and water, and maintaining biodiversity.
Article
Full-text available
Significance Land use and land cover change has resulted in substantial losses of carbon from soils globally, but credible estimates of how much soil carbon has been lost have been difficult to generate. Using a data-driven statistical model and the History Database of the Global Environment v3.2 historic land-use dataset, we estimated that agricultural land uses have resulted in the loss of 133 Pg C from the soil. Importantly, our maps indicate hotspots of soil carbon loss, often associated with major cropping regions and degraded grazing lands, suggesting that there are identifiable regions that should be targets for soil carbon restoration efforts.
Article
Full-text available
The '4 per mille Soils for Food Security and Climate' was launched at the COP21 with an aspiration to increase global soil organic matter stocks by 4 per 1000 (or 0.4 %) per year as a compensation for the global emissions of greenhouse gases by anthropogenic sources. This paper surveyed the soil organic carbon (SOC) stock estimates and sequestration potentials from 20 regions in the world (New and Russia). We asked whether the 4 per mille initiative is feasible for the region. The outcomes highlight region specific efforts and scopes for soil carbon sequestration. Reported soil C sequestration rates globally show that under best management practices, 4 per mille or even higher sequestration rates can be accomplished. High C sequestration rates (up to 10 per mille) can be achieved for soils with low initial SOC stock (topsoil less than 30 t C ha −1), and at the first twenty years after implementation of best management practices. In addition, areas which have reached equilibrium will not be able to further increase their sequestration. We found that most studies on SOC sequestration only consider topsoil (up to 0.3 m depth), as it is considered to be most affected by management techniques. The 4 per mille number was based on a blanket calculation of the whole global soil profile C stock, however the potential to increase SOC is mostly on managed agricultural lands. If we consider 4 per mille in the top 1m of global agricultural soils, SOC sequestration is between 2-3 Gt C year −1 , which effectively offset 20–35% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. As a strategy for climate change mitigation, soil carbon sequestration buys time over the next ten to twenty years while other effective sequestration and low carbon technologies become viable. The challenge for cropping Geoderma j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / g e o d e r m a farmers is to find disruptive technologies that will further improve soil condition and deliver increased soil carbon. Progress in 4 per mille requires collaboration and communication between scientists, farmers, policy makers, and marketeers.
Article
Rising levels of atmospheric CO2 frequently stimulate plant inputs to soil, but the consequences of these changes for soil carbon (C) dynamics are poorly understood. Plant-derived inputs can accumulate in the soil and become part of the soil C pool ("new soil C"), or accelerate losses of pre-existing ("old") soil C. The dynamics of the new and old pools will likely differ and alter the long-term fate of soil C, but these separate pools, which can be distinguished through isotopic labeling, have not been considered in past syntheses. Using meta-analysis, we found that while elevated CO2 (ranging from 550 to 800 parts per million by volume) stimulates the accumulation of new soil C in the short term (<1 year), these effects do not persist in the longer term (1-4 years). Elevated CO2 does not affect the decomposition or the size of the old soil C pool over either temporal scale. Our results are inconsistent with predictions of conventional soil C models and suggest that elevated CO2 might increase turnover rates of new soil C. Because increased turnover rates of new soil C limit the potential for additional soil C sequestration, the capacity of land ecosystems to slow the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations may be smaller than previously assumed.