Science and data for people



The potential of carbon sequestration in the soil


Soil’s contribution to climate change, through the oxidation of soil carbon, is important. However, soils – and thus agriculture - can play a major role in mitigating climate change. Through multiple agricultural practices, we could help store vast amounts of atmospheric carbon in the soil, while at the same time regenerating soil fertility, plant health and whole ecosystems. This is a no regret option that offers multiple benefits and deserves high-level visibility.


Agricultural practices have the potential to store carbon in the soil and plants, and thus help mitigate climate change, while at the same time increasing soil fertility and water-holding capacity, improving yields and good nutrition, creating drought-tolerant soils, restoring degraded cropland and grasslands and nurturing biodiversity, with positive consequences on local economies. Together these represent an across the board winning set of solutions.

The industrial farming systems succeeds in producing large volumes of food for the global market. However, it also engenders numerous negative outcomes such as significant soil erosion1–8, biodiversity losses9–20 and pollution of freshwater bodies21–23. It also promotes a high dependency on the agro-industry and its products, and an enormous freshwater22,24,25 and nitrogen26 footprint, along with agriculture’s large share of up to 25% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions27–30.

Earth’s population growth, climate change (with increased occurrences of weather extremes such as droughts and storms), potential shortage of mineral fertilizers, soil erosion and decrease of soils’ fertility, heavy dependency on fossil fuels, decline of pollinators and other factors collectively represent serious challenges for the current agricultural system.

Can alternative approaches to, for example, increasing soil fertility, employed via a versatile set of methods, regenerate soil resources and create win-win solutions, such as sequestering carbon in the soil to help mitigate climate change? An entire series of innovative and new approaches for such purposes are explored in the following pages.

Why is this issue important?

“Modern” or “industrial” agriculture in the early 21st Century is facing many problems and challenges as described above. One of the biggest - although not so much in the awareness in todays societies - threads humankind and the planet is now facing is the loss of soil, and thus soil fertility, due to agricultural practices (Figure 1): The fragility of soils, the thin layer of the earth which is the foundation of nearly everything growing and almost all that we eat, puts the “sustainability” of industrialized agriculture into question.

In many regions, soil fertility has been decreasing for decades, and large amounts of fertile soil have been (and

Soil Erosion
Figure 1: In cold climate countries, soil erosion mostly takes place on the surface, but can generate erosion gullies as well (photo from Germany), as it does in more brittle environments, washing away large amounts of soil.
Photo: Stefan Schwarzer

gone forever, and with it, much carbon, originating from the oxidation of soil organic matter (SOM, commonly known as “humus”), has been released into the atmosphere in the form of CO2, all of these with severe economic implications.

Twenty-four billion tonnes of fertile topsoil extending to 12 million hectares are lost every year2,8. This is equivalent of a land area almost the size of Greece or Malawi or to 192 million train wagons full of soil, every year. In the US only, this equates to 15.7 tons/ha/yr31,32 and in Europe to 2.5 tons/ha/yr of fertile cropland soil7. “Overall, soil is being lost from agricultural areas 10 to 40 times faster than the rate of soil formation imperiling humanity’s

Page Two Header

food security”8. Along with this topsoil loss is the ever-increasing degradation of agricultural soils. Twenty-five percent of the earth’s surface has already become degraded.

Silt Loam Soil
Figure 2: Left: 10 years no-till with cover crops and rotational grazing, 2.1% SOM. Right: Conventionally tilled wheat-fallow-wheat rotation, 0.5% SOM. Both soils are silt loam, 50m apart.
Photo: Michael Thompson

A third of the CO2 emitted through human activities into the atmosphere from 1850 to 1998 came from agricultural activities33,34. Estimates range between 133 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC)i since the dawn of agriculture through loss of soil organic matter and soil erosion35–37, and 379 GtC through forest clearing and burning38,39. In general, 50-70% of soil carbon stocks have been lost in cultivated soilii 40,41. Agricultural fields today often contain less than 2% SOM42, while at time of conversion from grasslands or forests SOM often amounts to 8-15% or even more. The loss of SOM has multiple negative consequences, one of these being the generation of CO2 through oxidation of the organic material. If large parts of that CO2 in the atmosphere come from the land and the soils, can it somehow be recaptured? That is, can CO2 be re-sequestered in the soil or living organisms, and help mitigate climate change? This is a key issue, because scientists have calculated that extensive terrestrial CO2 removal through managed biomass and soil carbon sequestration is required in order to avoid the currently projected temperature “overshoot”43–46.

What are the findings?

The amount of carbon in the atmosphere is 760 GtC and in the biologic pool 560 GtC33,47. Globally for the year 2010 Sandermann suggested that global soil organic content (SOC)iii stocks were 863, 1,824 and 3,012 GtC in the upper 0.3 m, 1 m, and 2 m of soil, respectively36. This is equivalent to each hectare classified by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) as cropland as an average of 62, 127 and 198 tC/ha.

The average historic SOC depletion is estimated at 20–30 tC/ha in forest/woodlands and 40–50 tC/ha in steppe/savanna/grassland ecosystems. On average, conversion of native grasslands to crop production results in approximately 50% loss of SOC35,36.

The most prominent carbon sequestration initiative “4 per 1000”, launched by the French Government at the 21st Meeting of the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-21), set a global aspirational goal to increase SOC stock at an annual rate of 0.4% per year (or 4 per 1000) in all land covers/uses, including forests.

This increase would relate to the first 30-40 cm of topsoil, which sum up to 690±90 (30 cm) and 860 (40 cm) GtC48. A 0.4% increase would thus sequester 2.8 and 3.4 GtC in these layers per year respectively. The annual increase of CO2 emissions is approximately 0.2 GtC globallyiv, and this sequestration rate would thus decrease the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere over time.

Equally important however, is the fact that increasing carbon in the soil leads to manifold advantages, improving agronomic yields of crops and pastures: (1) it increases the available water capacity, (2) it improves the plants’ nutrient supplies, (3) it restores soil structure, and (4) minimizes risks of soil erosion49. The visible difference between rich humus and impoverished soil is quite obvious even for untrained eyes (Figure 2).

Adoption of improved agronomic practices can result in relative annual SOC increases that are often much higher than 0.4%48,50–52, depending on the methods used and the amount of carbon present in the soil, as well as on economic incentives and existing expertise.

Global biophysical imitigation potential
Global biophysical imitigation potential

Figure 3: Carbon emissions and global potential for carbon sequestration in soils and vegetation - estimates from various sources.
Graphic: UNEP/GRID-Geneva

i    1 gigatonne = 1’000’000’000’000 kilograms; 1 GtC = 3.67 GtCO2
iii    SOC is a component of SOM, and is commonly calculated as SOM * 0.58
iv; average 2000-2017

Carbon sequestration potential ranges Figure 4: Global carbon sequestration potential ranges for different methods (note log scales), adapted from53

Estimates for carbon sequestration through improved practices vary considerably (Figure 3) as the understanding of the interactions and especially the knowledge of the behavior of soils is still limited. Various studies indicate theoretical potentials of 0.8 to 8 GtC per year35,40,44,51,53–57, partially including af-/re-forestation practices, and reaching up to 10 GtC/yr of additional carbon on agricultural land41,55, while practically achievable carbon removal amounts are rather located in the lower range of 1.5 to 2.5 GtC/yr30,53,58. With global carbon emissions in 2016 from fossil fuels and industry of 9.9 GtC plus 1.3 GtC due to land-use changes (such as deforestation)v 38, the potential for carbon sequestration through regenerative agricultural practices looks rather promising, although the implementation of such practices comes with different social, economic and expertise-related and other caveats. It requires funding and collaboration amongst scientists, policymakers, practitioners and multiple other stakeholders. Soil carbon sequestration has a large but not infinite sink capacity, and, importantly, is reversible through bad management. Global efforts to gradually change land use practices are difficult to implement, reducing thus the theoretical mitigation potential60.

Agricultural practices which can increase SOC include, inter alia, agroforestry methods, use of cover crops, use of crops species and varieties with greater root mass and deeper roots, use of nitrogen-fixing leguminous plants, integration of livestock into the cropping system, largescale crop rotation, improved grassland management, increased residue retention and amendments such as compost and biocharvi 44,45,48,51,53,55 (Figure 4).

Rhizosphere Figure 5: Many interactions take place in the “rhizosphere”, the active zone where roots meet bacteria and fungi. Drawing: Scott Buckley , Source: PlantsInAction

Increasing SOM, and adapting agricultural practices accordingly, requires an understanding of the fundamentally important relationship between plants and soil life (Figure 5). Plants interact intensively with a vast number of microorganisms, in particular microbes and fungi, in the soil. In a single gram of healthy soil one can find 108-109 bacteria, 105-106 fungi and much of other microscopic life61,62 which influences the plant’s growth and health, as well as nutrient and water storage in the soil63–68. The underground so called wood wide web alias www69,70 shares nutrients and water with the plant, as well as signals from the plants which influence defense against insect herbivores and foliar necrotrophicvii fungi71,72. Plants on the other hand transfer up to 50% of their photosynthesis products (essentially carbohydrates) via root exudatesviii with this highly diverse system of life66,68,73–78, building a complex natural symbiosis.


Plant diversity and microbial soil diversity influence each other positively68,79–83, supporting plant health and plant mineral concentration84, which leads Pieterse to express: “Indeed, roots and their plant health–supporting microbiome may hold the key to the next green revolution”85. Whereas the excrements of bacteria as well as their dead bodies constitute an important part of the carbon pool in the soil, mycorrhizaix produce a gooey, carbon-rich glycoprotein known as “glomalin”, which is crucial for soil stability and water retention86,87 and builds an important reservoir of carbon, pulled from the atmosphere87,88. In addition, it is the roots, through their process of exudates, which increase SOC 2.3 times more than the composting process of dead above-ground biomass89,90.

As recently demonstrated by Sanderman36,91, a higher carbon return management system results in a soil with more carbon, which supplies more nutrients back to the crop and increases crop productivity. A higher amount of nutrients in the soil would translate into diminished quantities of chemical fertilizer input needed. Chemical fertilizer is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in conventional agriculture, both through the energy-intensive production and the resulting reaction of microbes92. It is pertinent to know that LaCanne and Lundgren came to the conclusion that “profit [of regenerative farming systems] was positively correlated with the particulate organic matter of the soil”93. Not surprisingly, a 1% loss in SOC can be translated to a societal loss of natural capital, due to declines of ecosystem services and associated soil fertility, amounting to about $163/hectare94. Another study estimated the societal value of carbon in the soil at $120 per ton95.

v    Total greenhouse gas emissions (thus including the emission of methane and other gases too) without land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) amount to 13 GtCe plus 4.1 GtCe from LULUCF 59
vi    A long-time stable form of charcoal produced through pyrolysis of biomass, see later in this article.
vii    A parasite that kills its host, then feeds on the dead matter.
viii    Exudates are fluids, often rich in carbohydrates (or sugars) emitted by a plant via roots and other pores.
ix    Mycorrhiza is a symbiotic association between a fungus and the roots of a plant.

The following is a list of agricultural practices, which can help sequester carbon in the soil, although detailed data about their carbon sequestration potential is sometimes yet limited.

As tillage is one of the most important drivers for the mineralization of SOM and soil erosion, changing to reduced or no-tillage systems can have a positive impact on soil organisms and SOC, and can save up to 70% of energy and fuel costs and machinery investment96,97. Under most no-till systems, soil carbon in the upper layer (<10 cm depth) is increasing; however, this is not the case in deeper layers, where SOC is partially diminishing98–100. Nevertheless, research shows that the activity of both bacteria and especially fungi as well as soil structure are often improved96,98,101–103. No-till helps to protect soils; however, it often comes with the use of herbicides, such as glyphosatex, which in turn have negative consequences on soil biota and other living organisms and may harm human health104. In order to benefit from no-tillage and store additional carbon, this practice must be integrated into more diverse agroecosystems, where for example multi species cover crop help loose the soil with deep reaching roots, transfer carbon into that rhizosphere, stabilize soil aggregation and suppress weeds and pests42,105–108.

Crop management practices, which can be used to store additional SOC at rates of up to 0.4 GtC annually109, include selection of crop species and varieties with greater root mass and with deeper roots, use of crop rotations providing greater C inputs, use of cover crops during fallow periods, increased residue retention and addition of amendments such as compost and biochar110. Cover crops - the growing of beneficial plants during and for times of rest - and crop rotations can both improve soil fertility due to multiple effects: keeping the soil covered, feeding the micro-biome year-round, amending nitrogen to the soil through nitrogen-fixing plants and thus increasing SOM109, reducing soil erosion and suppressing weeds as well as pests, as many studies have shown111–116. Increasing the diversity of crop varieties, within a

culture as well as between subsequent cultures, can lead to important economic gains (higher yields, less pesticides use) due to greatly decreased weeds and insect pests, as this positively alters the supply of aphids’xi natural enemies55,117–119. Crop species with deep roots (especially helpful for cover crops) can perform all of the following key roles: sequester more carbon, help break up plough compactions, tap into the subsoil for additional nutrient accumulation, aerate the soil, provide beneficial conditions for earthworms and other soil life and can positively influence the root diameter of the subsequent crop66,68,120–122.

The abundance of earthworms is a key indicator for soil activity and soil health. Improving conditions for their activity is critical, as they dig (bio)pores that help aerate the soil, infiltrate and rapidly store water, increase humus levels through the integration of organic material in the soil and their highly nutrient-rich castings, and help to tap into the nutrient-rich subsoil64,113,123,124. Crop residue retention and mulching are key approaches for increasing soil fertility as well as soil carbon and at the same time limiting soil erosion4,33,93,125–127.

Intercropping, the simultaneous production of multiple crops on the same area of land, can increase net plant growth and thus sequester carbon in the soil, increasing yields while at the same time decreasing weeds128–132. Estimated numbers for SOC are however rare: Cong et al. demonstrate a 4% ± 1% SOC increase in strip intercrop systems compared to ordinary crop rotations133 and Oelbermann models a 47% increase of SOC after years in maize/soybean strip rotation in comparison to 21% and 2% increase in singlecrop cultivation. This can be explained by higher leaf surface area, increased mycorrhizal activity, increased communication and exchanges through root networks and through complementary requirements on the soil, i.e. the plant species using different amount of mineral nutrients83,131,134–136.

Undersown Figure 6: An undersown helps protect the soil, feed the soil organisms and push carbon into it. Photo: Andrew Howard

Undersown (or “living mulch”) (Figure 6) helps to protect the soil when the main crop does not fully cover the soil. It helps to suppress weeds and can (if for example leguminous plants are being used) boost the main crops’ growth due to furnishing organic nitrogen to the crop137–140 while increasing SOC141.

Another factor is that in the summer months of the temperate regions, the potential photosynthesis rate is at its highest. However, with the grain crops ripening, this energy is not translated into the production of carbohydrates. As one farmer puts it, “I am harvesting sun! I never wonna have spilled sun on my operation!”xii. As the undersown continues to produce photosynthetic products in that period of the year, it continues at the same time to add carbon to the ground, while delivering nectar, pollen and seeds to insects and birds and advancing biological pest control140,142–144.

The application of compost to crop- and grass-lands stimulates both above- and below-ground NPPxiii and - even if applied only once - leads to increased carbon accumulation of 2-5 t C/ha over subsequent

x    See the foresight brief on glyphosate
xi    Aphids are small sap-sucking insects.
xiii    NPP = Net Primary Productivity; the net amount of CO2 taken in by vegetation in a particular area, describing the plant’s productivity rate.

years145–147. It augments soil life through the fungi and bacteria in the compost itself. And it stimulates soil life activity, while bringing additional carbon and nutrients to the soil, improving soil structure and water holding capacity at the same time.

Root Systems Figure 7: Native prairie plants develop deep root systems, whereas the often-planted Kentucky Bluegrass (first one on the left) roots very shallowly. As approximately 2/3 of the SOM increase will come from roots, those plants have a much higher potential of storing carbon deep in the soil, while at the same time offering habitat and food for insects and birds, delivering versatile and nutrient-rich material to grazing animals and protecting the soil. Drawing: Heidi Natura

Native grass pastures: Pastures are often replanted in a regular manner with low-rooting species (such as Kentucky Bluegrass) and with a low variety of grasses. The “ancient” prairies of the USA (as well as Europe) were however composed of a large variety of native plants, many of these rooting - and thus putting carbon - very deeply into the soil37,148. Whereas typical seeded grasses reach depths of not more than 50 cm, native plants easily grow several meters deep, while including different root forms (Figure 7).

Crop-livestock integration, that is, using animals to graze off cover crops or stubbles, creates synergies among system components that may improve resilience and sustainability while fulfilling multiple ecosystem functions. It can increase SOM as well as economic return, diversify agricultural production systems, improve drought resistance and reduce soil erosion115,149–153. Using animals to graze off cover crops or stubbles not only improves the soil through the bacteria- and nutrientrich excrements, but can at the same time substitute for the use of herbicides (such as glyphosate). Colin Seis’ (Box 1) “pasture cropping system” goes even one step further, and combines perennial pastures with the growth of annual crops, giving impressive results in terms of soil carbon increase (9 tC/ha/yr for the years 2008-2010), biodiversity and yields154–156.

Improved grassland land management such as different types of rotational or short-duration grazing, seasonal grazing, inclusion of legumes and a high variety of plants, can lead to sequestration of up to 1.8 GtC37,41,45,48,49,53. This is especially true of adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing [or holistic grazing management or mob grazing, (Figure 8)], where herds graze in a rather small parcel for a very short amount of time (usually from half a day to 2-3 days) before being led to the next parcel, while offering several weeks to months of regeneration following the grazing. In contrast to a continuous grazing scheme, where the net effect of carbon reductions can be outweighed by N2O and CH4 emissions from the animals and their

Mob Grazing Figure 8: Mob grazing promises to be a powerful tool to raise rapidly soil fertility and soil carbon. Photo: Tom Chapman

excrements, new research and an increasing number of practitioners’ report growing rates of SOM, increasing soil fertility and biomass and increasing plant diversity. While taking the methane emissions from the animals into consideration, one still arrives at a net carbon benefit41,157,158 thus “indicating that AMP grazing has the potential to offset GHG emissions through soil carbon sequestration”159.

Agroforestry, the intentional integration of trees and shrubs into crop and animal farming systems (Figure 9), can create multiple environmental, economic and social benefits. It can increase SOC160,161 and sequester between 0.2 and 5.3 GtC per year in soils48,55,162, not counting the carbon sequestered in the wood, with most carbon sequestration in the tropics and subtropics162,163. It also increases biodiversity, stabilizes the soil, improves water infiltration and diversifies the farmer’s yields164,165. Agroforestry and conservation agricultural approaches in sub-Saharan Africa and tropical countries showed that larger increases of soil carbon than 0.4% are often attainable, while at the same time being of higher economic and environmental value125,163,166. The addition of trees to agricultural mitigation practices such as conservation agriculture or managed grazing can


Agroforestry System Figure 9: Agroforestry system in southern France, combining successful trees and crops. Photo: Christian Dupraz (INRA)

increase carbon sequestration rates by 5–10 and increase soil carbon stocks by 3–10 times167.

Intensive silvopasture systems - combining trees, livestock and grazing - can be developed to increase SOC168 and to achieve a net carbon capture (thus, accounting for the animals’ methane production) of 4-12 tC/ha/yr, while at the same time increasing the production of meat and milk on the same area of land163,169. Naranjo et al. found that emissions from livestock were equal to a quarter to half of the carbon sequestered in soil and biomass170.

Afforestation, by converting marginal and degraded (agricultural) soils into forests and perennial land use, can enhance the SOC and living carbon pool (wood), and has many other advantages as well (food through the use of nut or fruit trees, fiber, fuel, mulch, reduced soil erosion, increased water infiltration). The magnitude and rate of carbon sequestration with afforestation depends on climate, soil type, species and nutrient management 33,48,163,171,172. McKinsey & Company estimated that by 2030, afforestation could sequester 0.27 GtC globally per year in soils and biomass173. Trees have an extensive

root system that can grow deeply into the soil121,174 and root-derived carbon is probably the most important source for SOC storage57,122. However, afforestation cannot be developed at the expense of cropland, as it would compromise food security.

Reforestation measures have similarly a great potential and could account for 1-2.7 GtC/year globally29,48,55,175. Through the selection of perennial food producing shrubs and trees, global food production could be improved. Globally, the carbon dioxide removal potential through afforestation and reforestation is significant and has been estimated at 1-3.2 GtC per year30,48, 4 GtC through tropical re-/afforestation alone176 and up to 7.6 GtC55.

Restoration of histosols: Peatlands (with soils called “histosols”) are very high in organic matter and store large amounts of the world’s terrestrial biological carbon pool177. While the carbon stocks have been partially depleted through drainage and tilling, there is significant potential of avoiding additional carbon losses as well as carbon sequestration capacity through their

restoration172,178. Long-term sequestration rates in histosols range from 0.3 - 1.3 GtC globally53,55,57,179. However, histosol restoration implies stopping to crop them, which imposes a difficult trade-off between food production and other ecosystem services (e.g. climate regulation, biodiversity protection).

Biochar, produced through pyrolysisxiv of biomass, is a long-term stable form of charcoal. Biochar has multiple benefits, many of which are not yet understood. It is resistant to decomposition 180,181 and can stabilize organic matter added to soil182. Biochar can also form longterm carbon pools in the soil183, sequestering up to 0.5 GtC/year globally48,53,55,184, and in an extreme if unrealistic case up to 8.3 GtC48. The application of biochar provides a range of soil fertility and soil quality co-benefits, such as the promotion of fungi and bacteria growth, improved water and nutrient retention, decreased pathogen impacts185,186, increased soil porosity and higher crop yields if pre-composted187,188. However, large-scale use of biochar would require major inputs of biomass and may be challenging to implement189–191.

Box 1: Success Studies
Gabe Brown is a prominent conventional farmer in the US, who turned his farm, formerly based on a monocultural model, into a prolific business with increasing levels of humus (from <2% in the early 1990’s to >6% more recently), water holding capacity and diminishing amounts of herbicide use. He also uses a broad mix of cover crops, has integrated livestock into his cropping system via a holistic grazing management plan and stopped tilling his fields. Colin Seis is an Australian rancher, well-known for his “Pasture Cropping” system - an innovative land management technique that enables annual crops to be grown opportunistically on dormant perennial pastures or pastures whose competitive capacity have temporarily been suppressed by grazing, and/or selective herbicides to enable the successful growth of annual crops.xv Joel Salatinxvi is a well-known North American farmer, who intensively uses “mob grazing”, extended by a “follower system”; that is, a system where different animals can follow each other based on different forage needs, such as cows, sheep, chicken and turkeys. His soil fertility increased steeply, at the same time augmenting the diversity of plants in his meadows.

xiv    Pyrolysis is a treatment, which can be applied to any organic (carbon-based) product, whereby the material is exposed to high temperatures in the absence of oxygen.

What has been/is being done?

France Agroforestry System Figure 10: Agroforestry system in France. Photo: Raymond Sauvaire (MAP)

The 4p1000 initiative is the most prominent and political active movement to advance the subject of carbon sequestration in combination with agroecological practices. This initiative, launched by France in December 2015 at the COP-21, consists of federating all voluntary stakeholders of the public and private sectors (local, regional and national governments, companies, trade organizations, NGOs, research facilities etc.) under the framework of the Lima-Paris Action Plan (LPAP). Almost 40 countries and over 320 institutions and organizations worldwide have joined this movement. The 4p1000 initiative provides a space for collaborative interaction between scientists, policy makers and practitioners to make sure that actions are science based. The initiative is very active on the political side and it promotes science, as it also proposed a research program to sustain the goals of the initiative. In addition, Regeneration International, a collaborative effort of more than 150 companies, farms and institutions, works toward awareness and scientific knowledge in this field, as well as on the applied side.

Meanwhile, small advances can be observed around the world: “Australia’s Coalition Government is investing $450 million in a Regional Land Partnership program and $134 million in Smart Farms program to improve soil health. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has launched a scale-out plan to transition 6 million farms/farmers to (a) 100% chemical-free agriculture by 2024. The programme is a contribution towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals. A new bill will be brought before the UK parliament this year mandating, for the first time, measures and targets to preserve and improve the health of the UK’s soils.”xvii There are other initiatives on a practical and scientific level as well, raising awareness among and bringing together farmers, and investing government money in new approaches, as well as studying in more detail the effects of soil carbon sequestration and impacts on soil and plant fertility.

Thin horizon of fertile soil Figure 11: The thin horizon of fertile soil which is the basis of fertility on our planet. Agroscope (Gabriela Brändle, Urs Zihlmann), LANAT (Andreas Chervet)

Box 2
The five principles of soil carbon storage and regenerative agriculture based on “how nature does it”. Nature has hundreds of thousands of years of “research and development” behind it, including what worked, what didn’t work out and what disappeared. What works is known and present. Let’s learn from nature:
  1. Always protect the soil surface
  2. Minimize soil disturbance
  3. Use high diversity of plants and animals
  4. Keep living plant-root networks
  5. Integrate animals into the crop

Clearly, putting the above-mentioned methods into practice is challenging, as they require much knowledge and need to be adapted to local conditions. Some of these efforts will take several years of persistent implementation in order to demonstrate reliable results, and the bearing of financial risks and critiques from the more conservative farmer community. There already exists a small although increasing number of farmers using (some of) these techniques, and with positive results. The chances rise that others will follow. Interest for field days of those innovative farmers is rising steadily around the world.

It must be stated that numbers on the potential of carbon sequestration vary considerately, while new research almost every week offers additional, sometimes contradictory, information to the puzzle. Some of the critiques being expressed concern the non-permanence of SOC through bad land management, conflicting uses of residue inputs, competition between natural restoration and cultivation of food, lack of communication and expertise on how to adopt the varying practices and non-existing incentives and governance for these approaches.


What are the implications for policy?

A key conclusion of this Foresight Brief is that only a combination of approaches can help mitigate climate change. But even more importantly, it broadly demonstrates how agricultural practices that increase soil organic matter are supportive of enhanced food production, increased biodiversity, enhanced water retention and drought resistance and other important ecosystem services, and offer in reality a win-win solution for farmers and society as a whole (Figure 12). Current structures which sustain the “industrialized agricultural system” are complex and well established, and include farmers, machinery and chemicals manufacturers, markets and commerce, taxes and subsidies, low consumer prices and other factors. Broad implementation of the approaches described above can only be achieved with the active support of governments, while the development of the regenerative agriculture movement remains currently mainly a bottom-up one192.

Although many of the above mentioned practices come at a cost, some will actually bring revenues and cost savings 57. The cost we are willing to pay for them will determine the amount of carbon pulled back from the atmosphere. Price tags vary, but indicate that at 20-100 US$ per ton/C, a good share of the technical potential of carbon sequestration could be achieved30,55,173.

In order to help boost practices which increase SOM, the following cross-cutting actions should be priorities for policy-makers30,192,194–198.

  • Address land degradation and support land regeneration restoration: Agricultural practices have decreased soil fertility and degraded large areas of the land. Given the regenerative forces of nature, such land can be restored, but the proper knowledge needs to be applied.
  • Encourage agro-ecological practices that increase the quantity of SOM and pay farmers for soil carbon storage: A small but increasing

  • number of farmers use a variety of new or recent tools which use nature as a model to improve SOM, and in consequence many other “ecosystem services” as well. These best practices should be supported, communicated and spread widely where relevant, both at national but also at international level.
  • Mainstream agro-ecology and holistic food systems approaches into political, education and research agendas: The whole-system thinking in the abovementioned methods can be considered as a paradigm shift in the agricultural realm, making an immediate breakthrough difficult. The knowledge about these agro-ecological approaches should be promoted through political, educational and research institutions to make a transition more rapid and efficient.
  • Improve knowledge, communication, training and networking of/for practitioners on improving SOM

Regenerative Agriculture Figure 12: Problems related to industrial agriculture and benefits of regenerative agriculture. Design: UNEP/GRID-Geneva, Photo (right): Luis Franke


Advancing the SDGs Figure 13: Advancing the SDGs through management of soil health48,56,193.

  • levels, sustainable soil management and agroecological practices and approaches: The way such knowledge currently spreads is through local initiatives and small regional to international networks. Governments and other institutions should support these bridges towards a new future of farming.
  • Support agriculture and forestry as sectors potentially contributing to mitigation of climate change: Agriculture and forestry can be important realms for mitigating climate change, as they have the capacity of storing large quantities of carbon

  • in the biophysical realm, and offer at the same time important benefits for our society (Figure 13).
  • Support campaigns to preserve and build soils, such as SaveOurSoils and There are several international initiatives working to advance this subject within political agendas. The prominent ‘4p1000’ initiative is being supported by almost 40 countries and many international and national institutions and organisations.
  • Focus not only on total yields, but as well on other “ecosystems services” that farmers can contribute to (carbon sequestration, climate regulation, water storage and filtering, erosion control, biodiversity, nutritious-dense food and others): Our current system looks mainly at the parameter “yield per hectare” as an indicator of success, neglecting other important factors of sustainable practice. These should be brought more into focus through education.
  • Restructure successively subsidies for fossil energies and agrochemical goods, to encourage more diversified agro-ecological practices: The current practice of large-scale agriculture is heavily dependent on inputs and threatens the underlying basis of its own production system - the soil, biodiversity, water system and climate. Shifting the focus towards diversified agro-ecological practices can help nurture the very resources we depend on for the production of diverse and healthy food products.
  • Work for the opening of carbon markets and/or stimuli to new sectors such as agriculture and agroforestry: Although the success of existing carbon markets is limited, an integration of agriculture and agroforestry into existing schemes and the adjustment of the schemes to favor regenerative practices which support carbon sequestration should be an important part of the political agenda.

  • Develop policies for the supply of agricultural products that encourage sustainable soil management through public procurement where appropriate: The transition to sustainable soil management practices may in the first years raise costs and/or reduce yields for the farmer. As the current economic model mostly does not incorporate land degradation in production costs, the farmer should receive support from governments, markets and consumers in order to develop appropriate farming practices.
  • Enhance research for soil carbon sequestration practices to generate knowledge to support actions: Best practices must be identified, monitored, verified, reported and promoted with science-based harmonized protocols and standards to increase reliable knowledge of successful approaches.

The potential for carbon sequestration in soils via agriculture can play an important role in mitigating climate change. However, although the calculated values do portray important contributions, the realistic feasibility to put all these techniques on a global scale into practice, in a short period of time, is somewhat limited. Nevertheless, as the benefits of regenerative agriculture is so manifold, improving soil fertility and plant health, storing larger amounts of water, reducing soil erosion, enhancing biodiversity, ensuring a better outcome for small farmers and many others, there should be an overarching interest in investing into regenerative agriculture methods.

Crop Livestock Integration Figure 14: Crop livestock integration creates synergies among system components. Photo: Franzluebbers/USDA

Page ten header


1. Amundson, R. et al. Soil and human security in the 21st century. Science 348,1261071–1261071 (2015).
2. FAO & ITPS. Status of the World’s Soil Resources. 94 (2015).
3. García-Ruiz, J. M. et al. A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates across the world.Geomorphology 239, 160–173 (2015).
4. Govers, G., Merckx, R., van Wesemael, B. & Van Oost, K. Soil conservation in the
21st century: why we need smart agricultural intensification. SOIL 3, 45–59 (2017).
5. IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the assessment report on land degradation and restoration of the Intergovernmental Science- Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 44 (IPBES Secretariat, 2018).
6. Montgomery, D. R. Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.104, 13268–13272 (2007).
7. Panagos, P. et al. The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion in Europe.
Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 438–447 (2015).
8. Pimentel, D. & Burgess, M. Soil Erosion Threatens Food Production. Agriculture 3, 443–463 (2013).
9. Biesmeijer, J. C. et al. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313, 351–354 (2006).
10. Biodiversity International. Mainstreaming Agrobiodiversity in Sustainable Food Systems: Scientific Foundations for an Agrobiodiversity Index. (2016).
11. Butler, S. J., Vickery, J. A. & Norris, K. Farmland Biodiversity and the Footprint of Agriculture. Science 315, 381–384 (2007).
12. Chamberlain, D. E., Fuller, R. J., Bunce, R. G. H., Duckworth, J. C. & Shrubb, M. Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales. 18 (2000).
13. Donald, P. F., Green, R. E. & Heath, M. F. Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 268, 25–29 (2001).
14. Habel, J. C. et al. Butterfly community shifts over two centuries. Conserv. Biol. 30, 754–762 (2016).
15. Habel, J. C. & Schmitt, T. Vanishing of the common species: Empty habitats and the role of genetic diversity. Biol. Conserv. 218, 211–216 (2018).
16. Hallmann, C. A. et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLOS ONE 12, e0185809 (2017).
17. Robinson, R. A. & Sutherland, W. J. Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. (2002).
18. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, (RSPB). State of Nature 2016. UKReport.(2016).
19. van Elsen, T. Species diversity as a task for organic agriculture in Europe. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 77, 101–109 (2000).
20. Van Swaay, C. A. M. & et al. The European Butterfly Indicator for Grassland species: 1990-2015. (2016).
21. Mateo-Sagasta, J., Zadeh, S. M., Turral, H. & Burke, J. Water pollution from agriculture: a global review - Executive summary. (FAO, 2017).
22. Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Global Gray Water Footprint and Water Pollution Levels Related to Anthropogenic Nitrogen Loads to Fresh Water. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 12860–12868 (2015).
23. Moss, B. Water pollution by agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363, 659–666 (2008).
24. Hoekstra, A. Y. & Mekonnen, M. M. The water footprint of humanity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 3232–3237 (2012).
25. Water for a sustainable world. (UNESCO, 2015).
26. Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).

27. Carlson, K. M. et al. Greenhouse gas emissions intensity of global croplands. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 63–68 (2017).
28. Frank, S. et al. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 105004 (2017).
29. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis ; Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
30. UNEP. The Emissions Gap Report 2017. (2017).
31. Lal, R., Reicosky, D. C. & Hanson, J. D. Evolution of the plow over 10,000 years and the rationale for no-till farming. Soil Tillage Res. 93, 1–12 (2007).
32. Sullivan, P. Sustainable Soil Management. Soil Systems Guide. (2004).
33. Lal, R. Agricultural activities and the global carbon cycle. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 70, 103–116 (2004).
34. Houghton, R. A. & Nassikas, A. A. Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850-2015: Carbon Emissions From Land Use. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 456–472 (2017).
35. Lal, R. Digging deeper: A holistic perspective of factors affecting soil organic carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3285–3301 (2018).
36. Sanderman, J., Hengl, T. & Fiske, G. J. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 9575–9580 (2018).
37. Teague, W. R. et al. The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America. J. Soil Water Conserv. 71, 156–164 (2016).
38. Le Quéré, C. et al. Global Carbon Budget 2016. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 605–649 (2016).
39. Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Phillips, O. L. & Jackson, R. B. The Structure, Distribution, and Biomass of the World’s Forests. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 44, 593–622 (2013).
40. Zomer, R. J., Bossio, D. A., Sommer, R. & Verchot, L. V. Global Sequestration Potential of Increased Organic Carbon in Cropland Soils. Sci. Rep. 7, (2017).
41. Machmuller, M. B. et al. Emerging land use practices rapidly increase soil organic matter. Nat. Commun. 6, 6995 (2015).
42. Beste, A. What is Europe’s agriculture doing to the soil. (2018).
43. Boysen, L. R. et al. The limits to global-warming mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal: THE LIMITS OF TERRESTRIAL CARBON REMOVAL. Earths Future 5, 463–474 (2017).
44. Lal, R. Beyond COP 21: Potential and challenges of the ‘4 per Thousand’ initiative. J. Soil Water Conserv. 71, 20A-25A (2016).
45. Lal, R. Managing Soils and Ecosystems for Mitigating Anthropogenic Carbon Emissions and Advancing Global Food Security. BioScience 60, 708–721 (2010).
46. IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5 °C. (2018).
47. 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).
48. Soussana, J.-F. et al. Matching policy and science: Rationale for the ‘4 per 1000 - soils for food security and climate’ initiative. Soil Tillage Res. (2017). doi:10.1016/j. still.2017.12.002
49. Lal, R. Beyond Copenhagen: mitigating climate change and achieving food security through soil carbon sequestration. Food Secur. 2, 169–177 (2010).
50. Assad, E. D. et al. Changes in soil carbon stocks in Brazil due to land use: paired site comparisons and a regional pasture soil survey. 20 (2013).
51. Minasny, B. et al. Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma 292, 59–86 (2017).
52. Stockmann, U. et al. The knowns, known unknowns and unknowns of sequestration of soil organic carbon. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 164, 80–99 (2013).
53. Paustian, K. et al. Climate-smart soils. Nature 532, 49–57 (2016).
54. NAS & National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. (National
Academies Press, 2018). doi:10.17226/25259

55. Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 11645– 11650 (2017).
56. Lal, R. Soil health and carbon management. Food Energy Secur. 5, 212–222 (2016).
57. Smith, P. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363, 789–813 (2008).
58. Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063002 (2018).
59. Olivier, J., Peters, J. A. H. & Schure, K. M. Trends in global CO2 and total greenhouse gas emissions - 2017 Report. gr (2017).
60. Sommer, R. & Bossio, D. Dynamics and climate change mitigation potential of soil organic carbon sequestration. J. Environ. Manage. 144, 83–87 (2014).
61. Pershina, E. et al. Comparative Analysis of Prokaryotic Communities Associated with Organic and Conventional Farming Systems. PLOS ONE 10, e0145072 (2015).
62. Hoorman, J. & Islam, R. Understanding Soil Microbes and Nutrient Recycling. (2010). Available at: (Accessed: 5th December 2018)
63. Babikova, Z. et al. Underground signals carried through common mycelial networks warn neighbouring plants of aphid attack. Ecol. Lett. 16, 835–843 (2013).
64. Bardgett, R. D. & van der Putten, W. H. Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 515, 505–511 (2014).
65. Cao, Z., Li, D. & Han, X. The fungal to bacterial ratio in soil food webs, and its measurement. Shengtai XuebaoActa Ecol. Sin. 31, 4741–4748 (2011).
66. Eisenhauer, N. et al. Root biomass and exudates link plant diversity with soil bacterial and fungal biomass. Sci. Rep. 7, 44641 (2017).
67. Humphreys, C. P. et al. Mutualistic mycorrhiza-like symbiosis in the most ancient group of land plants. Nat. Commun. 1, 103 (2010).
68. Steinauer, K., Chatzinotas, A. & Eisenhauer, N. Root exudate cocktails: the link between plant diversity and soil microorganisms? Ecol. Evol. 6, 7387–7396 (2016).
69. Helgason, T., Daniell, T. J., Husband, R., Fitter, A. H. & Young, J. P. W. Ploughing up the wood-wide web? Nature 394, 431–431 (1998).
70. Giovannetti, M. et al. At the Root of the Wood Wide Web: Self Recognition and Nonself Incompatibility in Mycorrhizal Networks. Plant Signal. Behav. 1, 1–5 (2006).
71. Johnson, D. & Gilbert, L. Interplant signalling through hyphal networks. New Phytol. 205, 1448–1453 (2015).
72. Leake, J. et al. Networks of power and influence: the role of mycorrhizal mycelium in controlling plant communities and agroecosystem functioning. Can. J. Bot. 82, 1016–1045 (2004).
73. Bradford, M. A., Keiser, A. D., Davies, C. A., Mersmann, C. A. & Strickland, M. S. Empirical evidence that soil carbon formation from plant inputs is positively related to microbial growth. Biogeochemistry 113, 271–281 (2013).
74. Jones, C. Mycorrhizal fungi powerhouse of the soil. Evergr. Farming Mag. Sept. Ed. (2009).
75. Jones, C. E. Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised. Aust. Farm J. 8, 15–17 (2008).
76. Leigh, J., Hodge, A. & Fitter, A. H. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi can transfer substantial amounts of nitrogen to their host plant from organic material. New Phytol. 181, 199–207 (2009).
77. Kuzyakov, Y. & Domanski, G. Carbon input by plants into the soil. Review. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 163, 421–431 (2000).
78. Pausch, J. & Kuzyakov, Y. Carbon input by roots into the soil: Quantification of rhizodeposition from root to ecosystem scale. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1–12 (2018).
79. Lange, M. et al. Plant diversity increases soil microbial activity and soil carbon storage. Nat. Commun. 6, (2015).
80. Lehman, R. et al. Understanding and Enhancing Soil Biological Health: The Solution for Reversing Soil Degradation. Sustainability 7, 988–1027 (2015).
81. Six, J., Frey, S. D., Thiet, R. K. & Batten, K. M. Bacterial and Fungal Contributions to Carbon Sequestration in Agroecosystems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 555 (2006).

Page footer
Page eleven header

82. Thakur, M. P. et al. Plant diversity drives soil microbial biomass carbon in grasslands irrespective of global environmental change factors. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 4076–4085 (2015).
83. van der Heijden, M. G. A. et al. Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity. Nature 396, 69–72 (1998).
84. Burghelea, C. et al. Mineral nutrient mobilization by plants from rock: influence of rock type and arbuscular mycorrhiza. Biogeochemistry 124, 187–203 (2015).
85. Pieterse, C. M. J. et al. Induced Systemic Resistance by Beneficial Microbes. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 52, 347–375 (2014).
86. Bedini, S. et al. Changes in soil aggregation and glomalin-related soil protein content as affected by the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal species Glomus mosseae and Glomus intraradices. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41, 1491–1496 (2009).
87. Pal, A. & Pandey, S. Role of Glomalin in Improving Soil Fertility: A Review. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 18 (2014).
88. Haddad, M. J. & Sarkar, D. Glomalin, a newly discovered component of soil organic matter: Part I Environmental significance. Environ. Geosci. 10, 91–98 (2003).
89. Jackson, R. B. et al. The ecology of soil carbon: pools, vulnerabilities, and biotic and abiotic controls. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 48, 419–445 (2017).
90. Kätterer, T., Bolinder, M. A., Andrén, O., Kirchmann, H. & Menichetti, L. Roots contribute more to refractory soil organic matter than above-ground crop residues,
as revealed by a long-term field experiment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 141, 184–192 (2011).
91. Sanderman, J., Creamer, C., Baisden, W. T., Farrell, M. & Fallon, S. Greater soil carbon stocks and faster turnover rates with increasing agricultural productivity. SOIL 3, 1–16 (2017).
92. Shcherbak, I., Millar, N. & Robertson, G. P. Global metaanalysis of the nonlinear response of soil nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions to fertilizer nitrogen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 9199–9204 (2014).
93. LaCanne, C. E. & Lundgren, J. G. Regenerative agriculture: merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ 6, e4428 (2018).
94. Brady, M. V. et al. Valuing Supporting Soil Ecosystem Services in Agriculture: A Natural Capital Approach. Agron. J. 107, 1809 (2015).
95. Lal, R. Societal value of soil carbon. J. Soil Water Conserv. 69, 186A-192A (2014).
96. Friedrich, T. & Kassam, A. No-till Farming and the Environment: Do No-Till Systems Require More Chemicals? Outlooks Pest Manag. 23, 153–157 (2012).
97. Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Derpsch, R. & Kienzle, J. Overview of the Worldwide Spread of Conservation Agriculture. (2015).
98. Mäder, P. & Berner, A. Development of reduced tillage systems in organic farming in Europe. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 27, 7–11 (2012).
99. Meurer, K. H. E., Haddaway, N. R., Bolinder, M. A. & Kätterer, T. Tillage intensity affects total SOC stocks in boreo-temperate regions only in the topsoil—A
systematic review using an ESM approach. Earth-Sci. Rev. 177, 613–622 (2018).
100. Powlson, D. S. et al. Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 678–683 (2014).
101. Cooper, J. et al. Shallow non-inversion tillage in organic farming maintains crop yields and increases soil C stocks: a meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, (2016).
102. Mathew, R. P., Feng, Y., Githinji, L., Ankumah, R. & Balkcom, K. S. Impact of No-Tillage and Conventional Tillage Systems on Soil Microbial Communities. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2012, 1–10 (2012).
103. van Groenigen, K.-J. et al. Abundance, production and stabilization of microbial biomass under conventional and reduced tillage. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 48–55 (2010).
104. Schwarzer, S. Alternatives for the use of glyphosate. (2018).
105. Ashford, D. L. & Reeves, D. W. Use of a mechanical roller-crimper as an alternative kill method for cover crops. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 18, 37–45 (2003).
106. Böhler, D. & Dierauer, H. Messerwalze statt Glyphosat. LOP 5, 39–43 (2017).
107. Finney, D. M. & Kaye, J. P. Functional diversity in cover crop polycultures increases multifunctionality of an agricultural system. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 509–517 (2017).

108. Islam, R. & Reeder, R. No-till and conservation agriculture in the United States. An example from the David Brandt farm, Carroll, Ohio. in International Soil and Water Conservation Research (2014).
109. Poeplau, C. & Don, A. Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops – A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 200, 33–41 (2015).
110. Soussana, J.-F. et al. Matching policy and science: Rationale for the ‘4 per 1000 - soils for food security and climate’ initiative. Soil Tillage Res. (2017). doi:10.1016/j. still.2017.12.002
111. Barbieri, P., Pellerin, S. & Nesme, T. Comparing crop rotations between organic and conventional farming. Sci. Rep. 7, (2017).
112. Ding, G. et al. Effect of cover crop management on soil organic matter. Geoderma 130, 229–239 (2006).
113. Fageria, N. K., Baligar, V. C. & Bailey, B. A. Role of Cover Crops in Improving Soil and Row Crop Productivity. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 36, 2733–2757 (2005).
114. Masilionyte, L. et al. Effect of cover crops in smothering weeds and volunteer plants in alternative farming systems. Crop Prot. 91, 74–81 (2017).
115. Sanderson, M. A. et al. Diversification and ecosystem services for conservation agriculture: Outcomes from pastures and integrated crop–livestock systems. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 28, 129–144 (2013).
116. Sarrantonio, M. & Gallandt, E. The Role of Cover Crops in North American Cropping Systems. J. Crop Prod. 8, 53–74 (2003).
117. Döring, T. F. et al. Weeds in Organic Fertility-Building Leys: Aspects of Species Richness and Weed Management. Org. Farming 3, (2017).
118. Lundgren, J. G., McDonald, T., Rand, T. A. & Fausti, S. W. Spatial and numerical
relationships of arthropod communities associated with key pests of maize. J. Appl. Entomol. 139, 446–456 (2015).
119. Lundgren, J. G. & Fausti, S. W. Trading biodiversity for pest problems. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500558–e1500558 (2015).
120. Han, E., Kautz, T. & Köpke, U. Precrop root system determines root diameter of subsequent crop. Biol. Fertil. Soils 52, 113–118 (2016).
121. Pierret, A. et al. Understanding deep roots and their functions in ecosystems: an advocacy for more unconventional research. Ann. Bot. 118, 621–635 (2016).
122. Rasse, D. P., Rumpel, C. & Dignac, M.-F. Is soil carbon mostly root carbon? Mechanisms for a specific stabilisation. Plant Soil 269, 341–356 (2005).
123. Bardgett, R. D., Wardle, D. A. & Yeates, G. W. Linking above-ground and belowground interactions: how plant responses to foliar herbivory influence soil organisms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30, 1867–1878 (1998).
124. Reeves, D. W. The role of soil organic matter in maintaining soil quality in
continuous cropping systems. Soil Tillage Res. 43, 131–167 (1997).
125. Corbeels, M., Cardinael, R., Naudin, K., Guibert, H. & Torquebiau, E. The 4
per 1000 goal and soil carbon storage under agroforestry and conservation
agriculture systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Soil Tillage Res. (2018). doi:10.1016/j. still.2018.02.015
126. Köpke, U., Athmann, M., Han, E. & Kautz, T. Optimising Cropping Techniques for Nutrient and Environmental Management in Organic Agriculture. Sustain. Agric. Res. 4, 15 (2015).
127. Sulc, R. M. & Franzluebbers, A. J. Exploring integrated crop–livestock systems in different ecoregions of the United States. Eur. J. Agron. 57, 21–30 (2014).
128. Martin-Guay, M.-O., Paquette, A., Dupras, J. & Rivest, D. The new Green Revolution: Sustainable intensification of agriculture by intercropping. Sci. Total Environ. 615, 767–772 (2018).
129. Raseduzzaman, M. & Jensen, E. S. Does intercropping enhance yield stability in arable crop production? A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Agron. 91, 25–33 (2017).
130. Verret, V. et al. Can legume companion plants control weeds without decreasing crop yield? A meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 204, 158–168 (2017).
131. Walder, F. et al. Mycorrhizal Networks: Common Goods of Plants Shared under Unequal Terms of Trade. PLANT Physiol. 159, 789–797 (2012).

132. Oelbermann, M. et al. Estimating soil carbon dynamics in intercrop and sole crop agroecosystems using the Century model. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 180, 241–251 (2017).
133. Cong, W.-F. et al. Intercropping enhances soil carbon and nitrogen. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1715–1726 (2015).
134. Mäder, P., Edenhofer, S., Boller, T., Wiemken, A. & Niggli, U. Arbuscular mycorrhizae in a long-term field trial comparing low-input (organic, biological) and high-input (conventional) farming systems in a crop rotation. Biol. Fertil. Soils 31, 150–156 (2000).
135. van der Heijden, M., Wiemken, A. & Sanders, I. R. Different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi alter coexistence and resource distribution between co-occurring plant. (2003).
136. Brooker, R. W. et al. Improving intercropping: a synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytol. 206, 107–117 (2015).
137. Brust, J., Gerhards, R., Karanisa, T., Ruff, L. & Kipp, A. Warum Untersaaten und Zwischenfrüchte wieder Bedeutung zur Unkrautregulierung in Europäischen Ackerbausystemen bekommen. Gesunde Pflanz. 63, (2011).
138. Gerhards, R. Weed Suppression Ability and Yield Impact of Living Mulch in Cereal Crops. Agriculture 8, 39 (2018).
139. Deguchi, S. et al. White clover living mulch increases the yield of silage corn via arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus colonization. Plant Soil 291, 291–299 (2007).
140. Hartwig, N. L. & Ammon, H. U. Cover crops and living mulches. Weed Sci. 50, 688–699 (2002).
141. Poeplau, C., Aronsson, H., Myrbeck, Å. & Kätterer, T. Effect of perennial ryegrass cover crop on soil organic carbon stocks in southern Sweden. Geoderma Reg. 4,126–133 (2015).
142. Schmidt, N. P., O’Neal, M. E. & Singer, J. W. Alfalfa Living Mulch Advances Biological Control of Soybean Aphid. Environ. Entomol. 36, 416–424 (2007).
143. Pfeiffer, A., Silva, E. & Colquhoun, J. Living mulch cover crops for weed control in small-scale applications. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 1, 1–9 (2015).
144. Germeier, C. U. Wide Row Spacing and Living Mulch: New Strategies for Producing High Protein Grains in Organic Cereal Production. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 18, 127–139 (2000).
145. Ryals, R. & Silver, W. L. Effects of organic matter amendments on net primary productivity and greenhouse gas emissions in annual grasslands. Ecol. Appl. 23, 46–59 (2013).
146. Ryals, R., Eviner, V. T., Stein, C., Suding, K. N. & Silver, W. L. Grassland compost
amendments increase plant production without changing plant communities. Ecosphere 7, e01270 (2016).
147. Ryals, R., Hartman, M. D., Parton, W. J., DeLonge, M. S. & Silver, W. L. Longterm climate change mitigation potential with organic matter management on grasslands. Ecol. Appl. 25, 531–545 (2015).
148. Fisher, M. J. et al. Carbon storage by introduced deep-rooted grasses in the South American savannas. Nature 371, 236–238 (1994).
149. Bonaudo, T. et al. Agroecological principles for the redesign of integrated crop– livestock systems. Eur. J. Agron. 57, 43–51 (2014).
150. Franzluebbers, A. & Stuedemann, J. Soil physical responses to cattle grazing cover crops under conventional and no tillage in the Southern Piedmont USA. Soil Tillage Res. 100, 141–153 (2008).
151. Franzluebbers, A. J. & Stuedemann, J. A. Crop and cattle production responses to tillage and cover crop management in an integrated crop–livestock system in the southeastern USA. Eur. J. Agron. 57, 62–70 (2014).
152. Lemaire, G., Franzluebbers, A., Carvalho, P. C. de F. & Dedieu, B. Integrated crop– livestock systems: Strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural production and environmental quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 190, 4–8 (2014).
153. Russelle, M. P., Entz, M. H. & Franzluebbers, A. J. Reconsidering Integrated Crop– Livestock Systems in North America. Agron. J. 99, 325 (2007).
154. Jones, C. Carbon that counts. (2011).
155. Seis, C. Pasture cropping as a means to managing land. (2006).

Page footer
Page twelve header

156. Glover, J., Duggan, J. & Jackson, L. A novel perennial pasture and winter wheat conservation agriculture intercrop system for central USA Glover J1, Duggan J2, Jackson L3 1 Science and Technology Policy Fellow, U. 4 (2011).
157. Teague, W. R. et al. Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 141, 310–322 (2011).
158. Teague, R. & Barnes, M. Grazing management that regenerates ecosystem function and grazingland livelihoods. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 34, 77–86 (2017).
159. Stanley, P. L., Rowntree, J. E., Beede, D. K., DeLonge, M. S. & Hamm, M. W. Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems. Agric. Syst. 162, 249–258 (2018).
160. Cardinale, B. J. et al. Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 18123–18128 (2007).
161. De Stefano, A. & Jacobson, M. G. Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: a meta-analysis. Agrofor. Syst. (2017). doi:10.1007/s10457-017-0147-9
162. Shi, L., Feng, W., Xu, J. & Kuzyakov, Y. Agroforestry systems: Meta-analysis of soil carbon stocks, sequestration processes, and future potentials. Land Degrad. Dev. 29, 3886–3897 (2018).
163. Feliciano, D., Ledo, A., Hillier, J. & Nayak, D. R. Which agroforestry options give the greatest soil and above ground carbon benefits in different world regions? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 254, 117–129 (2018).
164. Lovell, S. T. et al. Temperate agroforestry research: considering multifunctional woody polycultures and the design of long-term field trials. Agrofor. Syst. 1–19 (2017). doi:10.1007/s10457-017-0087-4
165. Sun, Y. et al. An Ecologically Based System for Sustainable Agroforestry in Sub-Tropical and Tropical Forests. Forests 8, 102 (2017).
166. Sun, Y. et al. An Ecologically Based System for Sustainable Agroforestry in Sub-Tropical and Tropical Forests. Forests 8, 102 (2017).
167. Toensmeier, E. Perennial Staple Crops and Agroforestry for Climate Change Mitigation. Integrating Landscapes: Agroforestry for Biodiversity Conservation and Food Sovereignty, (2018).
168. Cardinael, R. et al. Increased soil organic carbon stocks under agroforestry: A survey of six different sites in France. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 236, 243–255 (2017).
169. Montagnini, F., Ibrahim, M. & Murgueitio Restrepo, E. Silvopastoral systems and climate change mitigation in Latin America. (2013).
170. Naranjo, J. F., Cuartas, C. A. & Murgueitio, E. Greenhouse gases in intensive silvopastoral systems with Leucaena leucocephala in Colombia. 12 (2012).
171. Laganière, J., Angers, D. A. & Paré, D. Carbon accumulation in agricultural soils after afforestation: a meta‐analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 439–453 (2009).
172. Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123, 1–22 (2004).
173. McKinsey & Company. Pathways to a low carbon economy. (2009).
174. Cardinael, R. et al. Competition with winter crops induces deeper rooting of walnut
trees in a Mediterranean alley cropping agroforestry system. Plant Soil 391, 219–235 (2015).
175. Ni, Y., Eskeland, G. S., Giske, J. & Hansen, J.-P. The global potential for carbon capture and storage from forestry. Carbon Balance Manag. 11, (2016).
176. Houghton, R. A., Byers, B. & Nassikas, A. A. A role for tropical forests in stabilizing atmospheric CO2. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 1022–1023 (2015).

177. Zedler, J. B. & Kercher, S. Wetland Resources: Status, Trends, Ecosystem Services, and Restorability. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 39–74 (2005).
178. Page, S. E. & Hooijer, A. In the line of fire: the peatlands of Southeast Asia. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 371, 20150176 (2016).
179. Mitsch, W. J. et al. Wetlands, carbon, and climate change. Landsc. Ecol. 28, 583–597 (2013).
180. Lehmann, J., Czimczik, C., Laird, D. & Sohi, S. Stability of biochar in soil. in Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation 235–282 (Taylor and Francis, London, UK, 2015).
181. Zimmermann, A. R. & Gao, B. The Stability of Biochar in the Environment. in Biochar and Soil Biota (Taylor & Francis Group, 2013).
182. Weng, Z. (Han) et al. Biochar built soil carbon over a decade by stabilizing rhizodeposits. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 371–376 (2017).
183. UNEP. The Emissions Gap Report 2016. 86 (United Nations Environment Programme, 2016).
184. Woolf, D., Amonette, J. E., Street-Perrott, F. A., Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S. Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat. Commun. 1, 1–9 (2010).
185. Lehmann, J. et al. Biochar effects on soil biota – A review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43, 1812–1836 (2011).
186. Hagemann, N., Kammann, C. I., Schmidt, H.-P., Kappler, A. & Behrens, S. Nitrate capture and slow release in biochar amended compost and soil. PLOS ONE 12, e0171214 (2017).
187. Jeffery, S., Verheijen, F. G. A., van der Velde, M. & Bastos, A. C. A quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using metaanalysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 144, 175–187 (2011).
188. Kammann, C. I. et al. Plant growth improvement mediated by nitrate capture in cocomposted biochar. Sci. Rep. 5, (2015).
189. Werner, C., Schmidt, H.-P., Gerten, D., Lucht, W. & Kammann, C. Biogeochemical potential of biomass pyrolysis systems for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 044036 (2018).
190. Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S. Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation. (Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2015).
191. Smith, P. Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1315–1324 (2016).
192. Padel, S. et al. Transitions to Agroecological Systems: Farmers’ Experience. 81 (2018).
193. Frank, S., Havlík, P., Soussana, J.-F., Wollenberg, E. & Obersteiner, M. The potential of soil organic carbon sequestration for climate change mitigation and food security. (2017).
194. FAO. The future of food and agriculture: trends and challenges. (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2017).
195. Frison, E. From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. (2016).
196. Agriculture at a crossroads. (Island Press, 2009).
197. IPES-Food. From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. (2016).
198. Tscharntke, T. et al. Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol. Conserv. 151, 53–59 (2012).


Stefan Schwarzer, UN Environment / GRID-Geneva and University of Geneva.


Scientific Committee, Bob Rees, Lydia-Stella Koutika, Lini Wollenberg



Final Page Image Photo: Luis Franke
Page footer