Page 1
Glob Change Biol.
2023;00:1–15.
|
1
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/gcb
1
|
INTRODUCTION
Keeping global warming below 1.5°C (consistent with art. 2 of the
Paris Agreement) requires immediate action to reach net- zero carbon
dioxide (CO
2
) emissions in the coming decades (IPCC WG3,
2022
).
Net- zero CO
2
emissions are achieved when anthropogenic emissions
are balanced by anthropogenic CO
2
removal. To limit global warming
to 1.5°C, nearly all scenarios rely on the removal of CO
2
from the
atmosphere. This is also the case for many scenarios limiting global
warming to well below 2°C (IPCC WG1,
2021
), confirming earlier as-
sessments (van Vuuren et al.,
2013
).
In the discussions on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques,
SOC sequestration has gained significant societal and scientific
attention in recent years. The exact climate change mitigation
Received: 7 October 2022
|
Accepted: 17 November 2022
DOI: 10.1111/gcb.16570
O P I N I O N
Carbon for soils, not soils for carbon
Gabriel Y. K. Moinet
1
|
Renske Hijbeek
2
|
Detlef P. van Vuuren
3,4
|
Ken E. Giller
2
This is an open access article under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2023 The Authors.
Global Change Biology
published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
1
Soil Biology Group, Wageningen
University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
2
Plant Production Systems, Wageningen
University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
3
PBL Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency, The Hague, The
Netherlands
4
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable
Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht,
The Netherlands
Correspondence
Gabriel Y. K. Moinet, Soil Biology Group,
Wageningen University, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
Email:
gabriel.moinet@wur.nl
Funding information
Wageningen University
Abstract
The role of soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration as a ‘win- win’ solution to both
climate change and food insecurity receives an increasing promotion. The opportunity
may be too good to be missed! Yet the tremendous complexity of the two issues at
stake calls for a detailed and nuanced examination of any potential solution, no matter
how appealing. Here, we critically re- examine the benefits of global SOC sequestra-
tion strategies on both climate change mitigation and food production. While esti-
mated contributions of SOC sequestration to climate change vary, almost none take
SOC saturation into account. Here, we show that including saturation in estimations
decreases any potential contribution of SOC sequestration to climate change mitiga-
tion by 53%– 81% towards 2100. In addition, reviewing more than 21 meta- analyses,
we found that observed yield effects of increasing SOC are inconsistent, ranging from
negative to neutral to positive. We find that the promise of a win- win outcome is
confirmed only when specific land management practices are applied under specific
conditions. Therefore, we argue that the existing knowledge base does not justify the
current trend to set global agendas focusing first and foremost on SOC sequestration.
Away from
climate- smart soils
, we need a shift towards
soil- smart agriculture
, adapta-
tive and adapted to each local context, and where multiple soil functions are quanti-
fied concurrently. Only such comprehensive assessments will allow synergies for land
sustainability to be maximised and agronomic requirements for food security to be
fulfilled. This implies moving away from global targets for SOC in agricultural soils.
SOC sequestration may occur along this pathway and contribute to climate change
mitigation and should be regarded as a co- benefit.
K E Y W O R D S
climate change mitigation, food security, soil carbon sequestration, soil multifunctionality,
trade- off
13652486, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16570 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Page 2
2
|
MOINET
et
al
.
potential of SOC sequestration is strongly debated, but unlike other
CDR techniques, SOC sequestration is claimed to be a ‘no regret’
or a ‘win- win’ option because its implementation provides numer-
ous co- benefits and few trade- offs (IPCC WG1,
2021
). Indeed,
management interventions aiming at SOC sequestration have long
been claimed to enhance soil fertility and productivity, increase
soil biodiversity, improve water retention and purification, and re-
duce erosion, compaction, runoff and water pollution (Lal,
2004
;
Paustian et al.,
1997
,
2016
; Smith,
2012
). Improvement of these ‘soil
functions’ would lead to larger and more stable yields globally, thus
safeguarding global food security and adaptation of global agricul-
tural production to climate change (Lal,
2004
; Rumpel et al.,
2019
).
Increasing enthusiasm is pushing towards ever more optimistic pre-
dictions, with, for example, claims that SOC sequestration would
be key to supporting five (FAO,
2017
), seven (FAO,
2019
) and up
to 12 Sustainable Development Goals (Smith et al.,
2019
). As a re-
sult, several recent papers (Amelung et al.,
2020
; Chabbi et al.,
2017
;
Kopittke et al.,
2022
; Rumpel et al.,
2019
) and high- level interna-
tional initiatives (the '4p1000 initiative’ launched during the COP21
in 2015, the Koronivia workshops held during the COP23 in 2018
and FAO's RECSOIL program) call for rapid upscaling and imple-
mentation of SOC sequestration practices to solve concurrently the
challenges of climate change and food security.
Yet already more than 15 years ago, Janzen (
2006
) highlighted
that a trade- off exists between
storing C
in soils for the benefit of
climate change mitigation, and
using soil C
during soil organic matter
(SOM) decomposition for the release of nutrients to support plant
production. In parallel, both climate change (Smith,
2012
) and food
security (Giller,
2020
) have been described as ‘wicked problems’,
highlighting their daunting complexity and the formidable interna-
tional social, political, economic and scientific interdisciplinary effort
that is required to offer even partial solutions. In such a context,
claims that a blanket solution can solve climate change and food
insecurity concurrently should prompt some degree of scepticism.
Like any ongoing scientific discussion, it needs relentless and rigor-
ous examination.
Starting from this perspective, we re- examine the terminol-
ogy and concepts underlying climate mitigation through SOC se-
questration and the empirical evidence supporting the promised
win- win with food security. We critically review estimates of the
global SOC sequestration potential and quantify the potential con-
tribution of SOC sequestration to reaching net- zero CO
2
emissions
in a 1.5°C target climate scenario for the 2100 horizon. While we
focus here on the technically achievable SOC sequestration po-
tential, we also acknowledge that many large social, economic and
political barriers exist to the implementation of SOC sequestration
practices that cast yet more doubt on the global mitigation poten-
tial of SOC sequestration (Amundson & Biardeau,
2018
; Bradford
et al.,
2019
). Then, we review the existing evidence on the effect
of increasing SOC stocks on above- ground plant production. Here,
we focus on plant production as a key soil function because of its
obvious link to food security, although we acknowledge that other
functions are also key.
2
|
SOC SEQUESTR ATION: CONCEPTS
AND TERMINOLOGY
Soils are the largest reservoir of C in the terrestrial biosphere, con-
taining 1700 Gt C in the top meter, that is, four times as much C as
global vegetation, twice as much as the atmosphere and 160 times
as much as the current annual anthropogenic CO
2
emission rate
(Friedlingstein et al.,
2022
). Soils also contain a significant amount of
inorganic C (Lal et al.,
2021
), but here we focus exclusively on SOC,
claimed to hold the largest climate change mitigation potential and
to benefit numerous soil functions.
Small changes in global SOC stocks (a few tenths of a percent)
could lead to proportionally large contributions to global CO
2
emis-
sions (tens of percent; Paustian et al.,
2016
). This makes soil both a
prime candidate to lock up CO
2
from the atmosphere, and a major
threat as poor land management practices and environmental
changes release CO
2
from soils and enhance global warming. For a
given area, net sequestration of SOC is the difference between in-
puts of C to the soil and the release of C into the atmosphere as CO
2
(or methane) from the decomposition of accumulated organic matter
by soil heterotrophic organisms. SOC sequestration can therefore
be defined as a state of the soil in which the soil C inputs exceed
the soil C release, leading to an increase in SOC stocks. Therefore, it
follows that SOC sequestration may be achieved by either increasing
inputs to the soil or decreasing losses.
Although this definition is widely accepted, it is worth highlight-
ing some common misconceptions. For example, SOC sequestration
in a given soil is commonly implied to contribute to climate change
mitigation (Chenu et al.,
2019
). However, this is only true when
sequestration results from a net gain of C from the atmosphere
(Powlson et al.,
2011
). As such, increasing C inputs from photo-
synthesis is the most effective climate change mitigation strategy.
Increasing organic amendment application, which represents a
transfer of C from one place to another, leads to a net atmospheric
decrease only when the soil stabilisation of the added material is
more effective at the application site than at the site from where
it is exported (Kirschbaum et al.,
2020
). Furthermore, the emission
of other greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide (N
2
O), can negate
or exceed the benefit of sequestering SOC in some conditions
(Guenet et al.,
2021
; Lugato et al.,
2018
). Agriculture is responsible
for approximately 70% of global anthropogenic N
2
O emissions (Tian
et al.,
2020
), largely due to the inefficient use of nitrogen fertilisers.
We, therefore, argue that a lack of consideration for nitrogen use ef-
ficiency is a missed opportunity to strongly reduce the greenhouse
gas footprint of agriculture as much as it is a trade- off with SOC
sequestration (Powlson et al.,
2011
). Another misconception arises
from the lack of distinction between SOC stocks and
changes
in SOC
stocks. It is critical to stress that while SOM and SOC remain the
most commonly measured soil variables (Bünemann et al.,
2018
),
they provide little insight into SOC sequestration and the role of soils
in mitigating climate change. First, SOC stocks measured at a given
point in time provide no information on a trend— SOC sequestration
involves a dynamic change in SOC stocks that can be quantified only
13652486, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16570 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Page 3
|
3
MOINET
et
al
.
by monitoring the stocks over time or by quantifying the balance
between soil C uptake and release. Second, ‘measuring SOC’ often
entails measuring concentrations (in unit mass of C per unit mass of
soil), which do not inform on the quantities of SOC stored in the soil.
Concentrations need to be converted to stocks (in unit mass of C
per unit of land area to a sufficient depth to avoid the effects of soil
compaction). This is usually done by multiplying the concentration
by the soil bulk density, which may change over time as a result of
changing management practices. More accurate methods exist that
account for changing bulk densities, such as the equivalent soil mass
basis (Wendt & Hauser,
2013
).
3
|
CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
POTENTIAL OF SOC SEQUESTR ATION
3.1
|
Estimates of global soil organic carbon
sequestration potential
Several methods can be used to quantify the global potential of soil
to sequester atmospheric CO
2
.
The first one is based on calculations of historical C losses from
cultivated soils (comparing C stocks from ‘virgin’ and cultivated soils
on similar soil types and land use) and ‘assuming a recovery of one-
half to two- thirds of historical C losses as a reasonable upper limit’
(Paustian et al.,
1997
). Early estimates of historical C losses varied
widely, from 40 Gt C (148 Gt CO
2
) to as much as 537 Gt C (1989 Gt
CO
2
) (Lal,
2001
). The most recent estimate (using data- driven statis-
tical modelling) puts global C losses at 116 Gt C (430 Gt CO
2
) over
the last 12,000 years of human land use (Sanderman et al.,
2017
),
suggesting a global SOC sequestration potential of 285 Gt CO
2
under the two- thirds recovery assumption.
The second and most common method uses ‘bottom- up’ ap-
proaches where average SOC sequestration rates are estimated for
different management practices over varied experimental duration,
from 5 to more than 80 years (Paustian et al.,
1997
). Then, these es-
timated rates are extrapolated to regional or global scale by mul-
tiplying the rate with the estimated land area available for a given
practice. The management practices, referred to as natural climate
solutions (NCS) (Griscom et al.,
2017
), include many agricultural
practices such as no- till, cover- cropping, improved nutrient, water,
and grazing management, agroforestry, as well as interventions in
other land- use sectors such as forestry and wetland management
and peat restoration. Bottom- up estimates vary widely in the liter-
ature, from 0.4 (IPCC,
2019
) up to 9.1 Gt CO
2
year
−1
(Lal,
2018
). The
variety of underlying assumptions used to estimate the availability
of land area for specific practices contributes greatly to this variabil-
ity (Fuss et al.,
2018
). Moreover, different studies focus on different
subsets of practices, from large ranges of NCS (Bossio et al.,
2020
),
to agriculture and forestry (Minasny et al.,
2017
), agricultural lands
only (IPCC WG3,
2022
; Smith et al.,
2008
) or croplands only (Zomer
et al.,
2017
). Whether biochar application should be included in es-
timates from agricultural management is also debated (Smith,
2016
).
Most recently, SOC sequestration in croplands, grasslands, agrofor-
estry and biochar was estimated between 1.8 and 4.1 Gt CO
2
year
−1
(IPCC WG3,
2022
). We also observe that depth is inconsistently
reported in review papers. As mentioned above, SOC stocks (and
therefore sequestration rates) are usually measured to a constant
depth and then converted per unit surface area (implicitly to this
constant depth). These reviews, therefore, potentially combine es-
timates of sequestration rates that are not directly comparable (i.e.
sequestration rates estimated to a depth of 2 m cannot be averaged
directly with sequestration rates estimated to 30 cm depth; Knotters
et al.,
2022
). This also contributes to the discrepancies between
global estimates. Bossio et al. (
2020
) calculated recently the con-
tribution of soils to the total mitigation potential of 20 NCS across
different land- use sectors with stringent limits on the area availabil-
ities to safeguard biodiversity and food security (leaving sufficient
area available for food production; Griscom et al.,
2017
). The authors
found a global technical SOC sequestration potential of 3.3 Gt CO
2
year
−1
, far less than previous estimates which did not constrain the
available land area (Fuss et al.,
2018
), and with greater recognition of
the need to use multiple solutions and address multiple objectives
concurrently.
As an alternative approach, Janzen et al. (
2022
) argued that
global SOC sequestration is most constrained by photosynthesis,
the primary source of soil C inputs. The authors estimated global
photosynthetic C inputs and, from this, estimated a global SOC se-
questration potential of around 0.52 Gt CO
2
year
−1
.
Interpreting global SOC sequestration estimates in terms of
their climate change mitigation potential is problematic because
of a number of well- known limitations as briefly mentioned in the
previous section (Baveye et al.,
2018
; Powlson et al.,
2011
; Rumpel
et al.,
2019
). In the following sections, we emphasise two aspects—
saturation and non- permanence— that we deem particularly un-
derrated and critical to the interpretation of SOC sequestration
potentials.
3.2
|
Saturation
SOC sequestration saturates over time (Six et al.,
2002
;
Smith,
2012
). This ‘sink saturation’ is due to either a finite avail-
ability of mineral surfaces and other physico- chemical properties
responsible for the persistence of C in soils, defining a maximum
storage capacity, or to environmental constraints on C input sta-
bilisation and decomposition rates leading to a new equilibrium
value for SOC and defining an ‘effective’ storage capacity (Stewart
et al.,
2007
). Therefore, converting estimated SOC sequestration
rates into total SOC sequestration potential requires the time taken
to reach a new equilibrium to be defined. Twenty years is often
mentioned as a standard (Fuss et al.,
2018
; Smith et al.,
2016
), but
other values are used, ranging from 5 to 50 years (Lal et al.,
2018
)
and up to 85 years (Mayer et al.,
2018
). Furthermore, both the
maximum and effective stabilisation capacities of soils depend on
pedoclimatic conditions (Angers et al.,
2011
; McNally et al.,
2017
),
13652486, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16570 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Page 4
4
|
MOINET
et
al
.
suggesting that both the timespan of SOC accumulation and the
rate of decrease in SOC sequestration are highly context depend-
ent. A notable exception is peat and other organic soils such as
mollisols, which are not bound to a maximum storage capacity,
but require very specific conditions over large time spans to ac-
cumulate SOC. In mineral soils, texture is particularly influential,
with sandy soils generally showing lower C storage capacities than
heavier soils (Angers et al.,
2011
; McNally et al.,
2017
).
Most critically, the concept of sink saturation suggests not only a
limited storage capacity but also that the rate of SOC sequestration
decreases as SOC approaches the maximum or effective storage ca-
pacity (Poulton et al.,
2018
; Stewart et al.,
2007
). Saturation, there-
fore, implies not only that SOC sequestration is time- limited but
also that sequestration rates decrease exponentially as soon as SOC
stocks start to increase (Baveye et al.,
2018
). Most studies, how-
ever, with one notable exception (namely, Sommer & Bossio,
2014
),
assume a constant sequestration rate over the defined time pe-
riod required to reach a new equilibrium (Bossio et al.,
2020
; Fuss
et al.,
2018
). Some assessments provide only an annual rate in a spe-
cific year and compare this to other negative emission or emission
reduction options. By doing so, the IPCC WG3 (
2022
) ranks SOC se-
questration as the fourth most effective option in 2030, just behind
the solar and wind energy transition. This is misleading and an unfair
comparison because the potential of SOC sequestration will decline
and reach zero over time, while it will be continued through time
for most other options, including transitioning to non- CO
2
emitting
energy production.
Here, we use the estimate of Bossio et al. (
2020
) as a starting
value for SOC sequestration rates and illustrate the large overes-
timations in C sequestration potentials arising when C saturation is
ignored. We compare the effect of three assumptions on the evolu-
tion of observed sequestration rates over time and illustrate their
consequence for global SOC sequestration potential estimates:
(1) a constant sequestration rate over time, (2) a rapid exponential
decrease in sequestration rates with a 10- year exponential decay
half- life; previously observed from converting croplands to grass-
land, which is arguably the fastest way to sequester SOC through
land- use change (Baveye et al.,
2018
), and (3) a slow exponential de-
crease in sequestration rates: with a 30- year half- life (
Figure
1a
). The
impact of these assumptions on global SOC sequestration potential
is striking (
Figure
1b
): for the 2100 horizon, they are 257, 121 and
49 Gt CO
2
for constant, slowly decreasing and rapidly decreasing
rates, respectively. This suggests that SOC sequestration potentials
estimates that disregard saturation are overestimated by 53%– 81%.
Finally, it is important to note that soils are not static: soil is
formed at the soil- bedrock interface (saprolite) at the bottom of the
soil column (mostly on centennial to millennial timescales), and soil
is transported by erosion, exposing subsoil layers at the eroded site
and burying topsoil layers where the eroded soil is deposited. Full
accounting of these processes would be required to understand
the carbon balance at larger temporal and spatial scale (Kirkels
et al.,
2014
). Reviewing knowledge on the creation and redistribu-
tion of soils on SOC storage is beyond the scope of this article, but it
is worth mentioning as it exposes yet another layer of complexity in
the prediction of SOC sequestration.
3.3
|
Non- permanence
SOC sequestration is also reversible. This means that improved man-
agement practices must be maintained for SOC stocks to remain at
their maximum potential after the new equilibrium has been reached
(Smith,
2012
). Although some authors argue that this is realistic
(Rumpel et al.,
2019
), SOC remains vulnerable to losses and is sensi-
tive to a range of environmental factors. This vulnerability remains
poorly understood. Particularly, the reappraised role of aggregation,
organo- mineral interactions and microbial eco- physiology in regu-
lating soil C dynamics (Lehmann & Kleber,
2015
; Liang et al.,
2017
)
questions knowledge of SOC sensitivity to factors such as tempera-
ture (Bradford et al.,
2016
; Conant et al.,
2011
; Moinet et al.,
2018
,
2020
,
2021
) and water availability (Moinet et al.,
2016
). The large
variability in the responses of SOC stocks to soil warming (van
Gestel et al.,
2018
) suggests a context- dependent response and a
highly uncertain future for newly sequestered SOC, even when best
management practices are maintained. Arguably, the residence time
of sequestered SOC is less than that of the C stored in fossil fuel res-
ervoirs (millennia). This implies that, in the long- term, avoiding CO
2
emissions is much more effective at limiting global warming than re-
moving atmospheric CO
2
, a fact referred to as ‘asymmetry’ in IPCC
terminology (IPCC WG1,
2021
).
Grasping the potential impact of SOC sequestration on climate
change necessitates a comparison with the reductions in CO
2
concen-
trations that are required. This has been done, for example, by com-
paring estimated SOC sequestration potentials to CO
2
emitted from
anthropogenic activities (Minasny et al.,
2017
; Sommer & Bossio,
2014
).
Following this approach, the most optimistic global potential estimate
of ca. 454 Gt CO
2
(Lal,
2018
) represents a little under 12 years of global
CO
2
emissions at the current rate of 39 Gt CO
2
year
−1
, and 3.5 years
of global CO
2
emissions under our assumption of a fast decreas-
ing SOC sequestration rate. The more realistic estimate from Bossio
et al. (
2020
) represents 1.2– 4.2 years of global emissions. Such com
-
parisons have been used to illustrate that SOC sequestration would
allow ‘buying time’ while low- carbon technologies are being developed
(Minasny et al.,
2017
). We contend that this is misleading because of
the reversibility of SOC sequestration and the large uncertainties sur-
rounding its timespan. SOC sequestration cannot substitute emission
reductions, even temporarily, nor does it delay the need for immedi-
ate and aggressive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions if we are to keep
global warming under 1.5 or well- below 2°C (Anderson et al.,
2019
).
As an alternative representation of the contribution of SOC se-
questration to reaching the goals of the Paris agreement, we made
some simple calculations. Current policies are expected to stabilise
emission levels at the current rate (39 Gt CO
2
year
−1
), while scenar-
ios focusing on current trends typically show a modest increase
(IPCC WG3,
2022
). Under these circumstances, cumulative emis-
sions would reach close to 3500 Gt CO
2
(range of 3000– 4000 Gt
13652486, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16570 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Page 5
|
5
MOINET
et
al
.
CO
2
) by the end of the century. The total carbon budget to meet the
1.5°C target is estimated at 500 Gt CO
2
from early 2020 to 2100
(IPCC WG1,
2021
). This implies a total net reduction in emissions
of around 3000 Gt CO
2
. Avoiding positive emissions (e.g. by decar-
bonisation and demand reduction) will be the main pathway. CDR
can contribute to meeting the target by offsetting positive emis-
sions before net- zero is reached (e.g. from hard- to- abate sectors) or
by contributing to net negative emissions. In this context, the pos-
sible contribution of SOC sequestration alone, under the unrealistic
assumption of an unlimited sequestration potential, would range
from 1.0% (IPCC,
2019
) to 23.7% (Lal,
2018
) of the efforts towards
a 1.5°C target for the horizon 2100 (
Figure
1c
; taking 0.4 and 9.1
Gt CO
2
year
−1
as initial rates). Contributions decrease to 11.1% and
4.5% for the most optimistic SOC sequestration rate estimate (Lal
et al.,
2018
) under the fast and slow assumptions, respectively; and
to 4.0% and 1.6% for the more realistic initial SOC sequestration
rate (3.3 Gt CO
2
year
−1
by Bossio et al.,
2020
;
Figure
1d,e
). The most
recent estimated initial SOC sequestration rate (0.52 Gt CO
2
year
−1
by Janzen et al.,
2022
) would suggest an insignificant contribution of
between 0% and 1%.
F I G U R E 1
Visualisation of the impact of three different assumptions regarding C saturation on global soil organic carbon (SOC)
sequestration and its potential to mitigate climate change to the horizon 2100. The three assumptions are as follows: An unrealistic constant
sequestration rates over time, that is, no saturation limit (green dotted lines and frame); slow exponential decrease in sequestration rates
(30 years exponential decay half- life; blue lines and frame); and fast exponential decrease in sequestration rates (10 years half- life; orange
lines and frame). For the three assumptions, the temporal dynamics of global sequestration rates (a) and global SOC sequestration potential
(b) are depicted for the example of the estimate from Bossio et al. (
2020
). The contribution of SOC sequestration to a pathway to 1.5°C
target is represented for the whole range of literature estimates of sequestration rates in panels (c), (d) and (e), each panel corresponding to
one assumption on saturation as indicated by the colours.
(a)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(b)
13652486, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16570 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Page 6
6
|
MOINET
et
al
.
4
|
CONTRIBUTION OF SOC
SEQUESTR ATION TO SOIL FERTILIT Y AND
CROP YIELDS
Crops do not take up C from the soil. Therefore, the mechanisms
through which SOC affects crop biomass and yield are always indi-
rect. Such mechanisms include an increased supply of nutrients from
mineralisation of SOM, enhanced retention and buffering of nutri-
ent stocks through increased cation exchange capacity, improved
water infiltration and better soil structure (and thus increased water
and nutrient availability), or through shifts in the composition and
structure of soil organism communities which may positively impact
nutrient cycling and pest and disease control (Johnston et al.,
2009
;
Watts & Dexter,
1997
).
While seemingly sound, the generality of this narrative has been
contested, both theoretically (Janzen,
2006
) and empirically (Terrer
et al.,
2021
), as mentioned in the introduction. So, what is the em-
pirical evidence for a causal link between SOC sequestration and
improved crop biomass production and yields? In recent years, a
large number of meta- analyses assessed the benefits of either SOC
sequestration or management practices that lead to SOC seques-
tration, on crop yields. To shed more light on the premise that SOC
sequestration for climate change mitigation will also increase plant
production, we reviewed 21 of those meta- analyses, the methods
they employed, the outcomes, the validity and the limitations of
the studies (
Table
1
). This exercise led us to three main conclusions,
successively elaborated in the following sections: (i) establishing
causality between SOC sequestration and crop yield is problematic,
(ii) the response variables used vary among the studies and all have
limitations, and (iii) the outcomes vary with space, time and methods
used. Altogether, the meta- analyses provide no convincing empirical
support that there is a general positive correlation between SOC se-
questration and improvements in crop yield.
4.1
|
Establishing causality is problematic
The most straightforward method to assess the effect of SOC
on crop yields is a space for time substitution (as done by Han
et al.,
2018
; Oelofse et al.,
2015
; Oldfield et al.,
2019
; Schjønning
et al.,
2018
). Such studies compare crop production at several lo-
cations, some with larger SOC content than others, and assess dif-
ferences in yields. Implicitly, a similar yield difference is assumed
to occur when the SOC would have changed over time in one lo-
cation. Interpretation is problematic, however, as soil texture and
climate are strong confounding factors. Soil texture and climate
affect SOC stocks (Burke et al.,
1989
; Feller & Beare,
1997
; Hoyle
et al.,
2016
; Miller et al.,
2004
) but also affect crop yields directly
(van Ittersum & Rabbinge,
1997
). Furthermore, if SOC can affect
crop yield through the mechanisms mentioned earlier, the reverse
may also be true: larger crop yields may lead to increased biomass
inputs to the soil, through crop residues, roots and stubble, and may
therefore positively affect the soil C balance. The direction of the
causality in a correlation observed between SOC stocks and crop
yields is therefore contested, both in spatial and time series observa-
tions (
Figure
2
).
Correlating crop yields to a change in SOC stocks (or to a man-
agement practice that enhances SOC stocks) over time in the same
location (as done by Alvarez et al.,
2017
; Chen et al.,
2018
; Cooper
et al.,
2016
; Dawe et al.,
2003
; Du et al.,
2020
; Han et al.,
2018
; Islam
et al.,
2022
; Jeffery et al.,
2017
; Kuyah et al.,
2019
; Li et al.,
2021
;
Luo et al.,
2018
; Soussana et al.,
2019
; Wei et al.,
2016
; Zavattaro
et al.,
2017
) is not subject to such confounding environmental fac-
tors but has other limitations. To increase SOC stocks (relative to a
control treatment) in an experimental field, a change in management
practices is required. Yet management changes not only affect SOC
but may also influence crop yields directly (
Figure
2
). For example,
cultivation of a cover crop can increase SOC stocks and, at the same
time, can reduce N losses, thereby increasing soil N supply and pos-
sibly crop yields (Thapa et al.,
2018
). Another example is that of bio-
char, for which beneficial effects on crop yields are mainly observed
in tropical acid soils (Jeffery et al.,
2017
), most likely due to the ame-
lioration of aluminium toxicity (Shetty et al.,
2021
).
4.2
|
Limitations of response variables used
An additional complication that arises when assessing the contribu-
tion of SOC sequestration to crop yields is the composition of SOM,
which changes over time. Often, adding organic amendments to
soil is assumed to be representative of SOC sequestration (Dawe
et al.,
2003
; Islam et al.,
2022
; Wei et al.,
2016
) as additional C inputs
favour a positive soil C balance. However, fresh organic amendments
are not equivalent to a long- term change in SOC stocks. Fresh or-
ganic amendments contain large amounts of nutrients (such as N,
phosphorus [P] and potassium [K]), which are more readily avail-
able for crops than the nutrients contained in older, stabilised SOM.
Fresh organic amendments may therefore have larger benefits for
crop yields than older and more stable SOM. When analysing field
experimental data, such NPK effects can be excluded by assessing
yield response curves to N application in the presence of sufficient P
and K supply and calculating the difference in attainable crop yields
(as done by Hijbeek et al.,
2017
; Oelofse et al.,
2015
; Schjønning
et al.,
2018
). In such cases, attainable crop yields are the plateau
of the yield response curve. An increase in the plateau suggests
improvements in other soil functions, beyond nutrient supply, that
stimulate crop yields.
Alternatively, one can assess the influence of an increase in SOC
on agronomic N use efficiency or N recovery (as done by Oelofse
et al.,
2015
; Ravensbergen et al.,
2021
; Schjønning et al.,
2018
;
Vanlauwe et al.,
2011
). These indicators assess the additional yield
or crop N uptake per additional kg N applied. An increase would
confirm the hypothesis that larger SOC stocks lead to improved
soil structure, water holding capacity, or soil quality in general (al-
though we acknowledge that the term is controversial; Bünemann
et al.,
2018
), leading to more plant production per unit N applied.
13652486, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16570 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Page 7
|
7
MOINET
et
al
.
T
A
B
LE 1
O
ve
rv
ie
w o
f d
ire
ct
io
n a
nd s
iz
e o
f m
ea
n e
ff
ec
ts o
f S
O
C s
eq
ue
st
ra
tio
n o
n c
ro
p y
ie
ld
s, d
ep
en
di
ng o
n t
he a
ss
es
sm
en
t m
et
ho
d u
se
d, a
cr
os
s 2
1 m
et
a-
an
al
ys
es
C
or
re
ct
io
n o
f N
PK
sup
pl
y?
Me
ta
- a
nal
ys
is
Lo
ca
tio
n
# d
at
a p
oi
nt
s
M
ana
gem
en
t pr
ac
tic
e
Re
sp
on
se
v
ar
ia
ble
Si
gn
ifi
ca
nt m
ea
n e
ff
ec
t
O
bs
er
ve
d y
ie
ld e
ff
ec
ts
—
co
rr
ec
te
d f
or N
, P a
nd
K
c
on
tr
ib
ut
io
ns
O
el
of
se e
t a
l.
(
201
5
), f
ig
ur
e 5
a,
b
D
en
m
ar
k
869
Spa
tia
l c
ompa
riso
n
N r
ec
ov
er
y (
w
he
at
)
−0
.1
7 (
kg N
/k
g N
)/
% s
oi
l C
N r
ec
ov
er
y (
sp
rin
g b
ar
le
y)
−0
.1
6 (
kg N
/k
g N
)/
% s
oi
l C
A
tt
ai
na
bl
e y
ie
ld
0 (
t/
ha
)/
% s
oi
l C
Sc
hj
øn
ni
ng e
t a
l.
(
20
18
), f
ig
ur
e 7
D
en
m
ar
k
975
Spa
tia
l c
ompa
riso
n
A
gr
on
omic
N
us
e e
ff
ic
ie
nc
y
−3
.9
5 (
kg g
ra
in y
ie
ld
/k
g N
) p
er
0.
01 k
g s
oi
l C
/k
g m
in
er
al
s
A
tt
ai
na
bl
e y
ie
ld
−6
30 k
g g
ra
in y
ie
ld
/h
a p
er
0.
01 k
g s
oi
l C
/k
g m
in
er
al
s
H
ijb
ee
k e
t a
l.
(
20
17
)
Eu
ro
pe
10
7 (
20
)
O
rg
an
ic
a
men
dmen
ts
Δ
a
tt
ai
na
bl
e y
ie
ld
0%
Ra
ven
sb
er
gen
e
t a
l.
(
202
1
), f
ig
ur
e 6
a
N
ige
ria
676
Spa
tia
l c
ompa
riso
n
N r
ec
ov
er
y
0 (
kg N
/k
g N
)/
g/
kg s
oi
l C
C
oo
pe
r e
t a
l.
(
20
16
)
N
- A
m
er
ic
a & E
ur
op
e
107
9 (
26)
Re
du
ci
ng
ti
lla
ge
Δ
y
ie
ld
(v
s.
de
ep
in
ver
si
on
till
ag
e)
−7
.6
%
Δ
y
ie
ld (v
s. s
ha
llo
w
in
ve
rs
io
n t
ill
ag
e)
0%
U
nc
er
ta
in
in
s
ome
c
as
es
Za
va
tt
ar
o e
t a
l.
(
20
17
)
Eu
ro
pe
310
(8
0)
O
rg
an
ic
a
men
dmen
ts
Δ
y
ie
ld
0%
C
he
n e
t a
l.
(
20
18
), f
ig
ur
e
2b
, f
ig
ur
e S
1b
G
lo
ba
l
32
9 (
132
)
O
rg
an
ic
a
men
dmen
ts
Δ
y
ie
ld
(a
ver
ag
e o
ver
pe
rio
d)
0%
Δ
y
ie
ld
(l
as
t e
xp
er
imen
ta
l
ye
ar)
5.
3%
D
aw
e e
t a
l.
(
20
03
)
A
sia
75
(2
5)
O
rg
an
ic
a
men
dmen
ts
Δ
y
ie
ld
0%
Δ
y
ie
ld
tr
en
ds
0%
(Co
nti
nue
s)
13652486, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16570 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Page 8
8
|
MOINET
et
al
.
C
or
re
ct
io
n o
f N
PK
sup
pl
y?
Me
ta
- a
nal
ys
is
Lo
ca
tio
n
# d
at
a p
oi
nt
s
M
ana
gem
en
t pr
ac
tic
e
Re
sp
on
se
v
ar
ia
ble
Si
gn
ifi
ca
nt m
ea
n e
ff
ec
t
O
bs
er
ve
d y
ie
ld e
ff
ec
ts
- p
oss
ib
ly
in
cl
udin
g N
,
P o
r K c
on
tr
ib
ut
io
ns
W
ei e
t a
l.
(
20
16
)
C
hina
38 (
32
)
O
rg
an
ic
a
men
dmen
ts
Δ
y
ie
ld
7.
6%
Δ
y
ie
ld
tr
en
ds
26
.9
%
V
an
la
uw
e e
t a
l.
(
20
11
), f
ig
ur
e 6
a
SSA
72
1 (
90
)
Re
si
du
es I
, I
II, I
V
Δ
a
gr
on
om
ic N u
se
ef
fic
ienc
y
−3
6%
Res
id
ues
II
Δ
a
gr
on
om
ic N u
se
ef
fic
ienc
y
0%
FY
M
o
r c
omp
os
t
Δ
a
gr
on
om
ic N u
se
ef
fic
ienc
y
28
%
Je
ff
er
y e
t a
l.
(
20
17
)
G
lo
ba
l
11
25
(1
09
)
U
se
o
f bi
ocha
r
Δ
y
ie
ld
(t
em
per
at
e)
0%
Δ
y
ie
ld
(t
ro
pic
s)
25%
Lu
o e
t a
l.
(
20
18
)
G
lo
ba
l
22
6 (1
06
)
O
rg
an
ic
a
men
dmen
ts
Δ
y
ie
ld
27
%
H
an e
t a
l.
(
20
18
)
C
hina
75
(7
0)
St
ra
w
Δ
y
ie
ld
13
.4
%
Spa
tia
l c
ompa
riso
n
Yi
eld
26
7–
41
4 k
g g
ra
in y
ie
ld
/g s
oi
l
C
/k
g s
oil
Pa
n e
t a
l. (
20
09
)
C
hina
N
at
io
na
l
st
at
is
tic
s
Ti
me
s
er
ie
s
Yi
eld
0.
43 t g
ra
in y
ie
ld
/% s
oi
l C
So
us
sa
na e
t a
l. (
20
19
), f
ig
ur
e
1
A
fr
ic
a, A
si
a & L
- A
15
1 (3
2)
D
iv
er
se
Δ
y
ie
ld
3.
25
% g
ra
in y
ie
ld
/% c
ha
ng
e i
n
% s
oi
l C
A
lv
ar
ez e
t a
l.
(
20
17
), f
ig
ur
e 5
A
rg
en
tine
P
ampa
s
67
(6
2)
Le
gu
me
c
ov
er
c
ro
p
Δ
y
ie
ld (
m
ai
ze
)
6.
70%
No
n-
le
gu
me
c
ov
er
c
ro
p
Δ
y
ie
ld (
m
ai
ze
)
0%
C
ov
er c
ro
p
Δ
y
ie
ld
(s
oy
be
an
)
−2
.5
0%
K
uy
ah e
t a
l.
(
20
19
)
SSA
39
7 (
61
)
A
gr
of
or
es
tr
y (
di
ve
rs
)
Δ
y
ie
ld
10
0%
Li e
t a
l.
(
202
1
)
U
pla
nd
C
hina
62
2 (1
60
)
O
rg
an
ic
a
men
dmen
ts
Δ
y
ie
ld (
or
g o
nl
y)
0%
Δ
y
ie
ld (
or
g
+
fe
rt
)
8.
3%
– 8
.7
%
D
u e
t a
l. (
2020
)
C
hina
774
(1
41
)
Manur
e
Δ
y
ie
ld
7.
60
%
O
ld
fie
ld
e
t a
l.
(
20
19
), f
ig
ur
e
1
G
lo
ba
l
83
4 (9
0)
Spa
tia
l c
ompa
riso
n
Yi
eld
equ
at
ion
Ta
bl
e
1
(O
ld
fie
ld
et a
l.,
20
19
)
Is
la
m e
t a
l.
(
202
2
), f
ig
ur
e
2
C
hina
10
71
(17
7)
St
ra
w
Δ
y
ie
ld
(mo
noc
ro
pp
in
g)
11
.8
0%
Δ
y
ie
ld
(d
ou
bl
e c
ro
pp
in
g)
5.
50
%
N
ote
: R
ed i
nd
ic
at
es a m
ea
n s
ig
ni
fic
an
t n
eg
at
iv
e y
ie
ld e
ff
ec
t, o
ra
ng
e i
nd
ic
at
es n
o s
ig
ni
fic
an
t y
ie
ld e
ff
ec
t a
nd b
lu
e i
nd
ic
at
es a m
ea
n s
ig
ni
fic
an
t p
os
iti
ve y
ie
ld e
ff
ec
t. D
at
a p
oi
nt
s i
nd
ic
at
e t
he n
um
be
r o
f
yi
el
d o
bs
er
va
tio
ns
. I
f y
ie
ld o
bs
er
va
tio
ns d
iff
er f
ro
m t
he a
m
ou
nt o
f f
ie
ld e
xp
er
im
en
ta
l l
oc
at
io
ns
, t
he l
at
te
r i
s p
la
ce
d w
ith
in b
ra
ck
et
s. A
n e
ar
lie
r (
m
or
e l
im
ite
d) r
ev
ie
w o
f m
et
a-
an
al
ys
es w
as p
ub
lis
he
d a
s a
co
nf
er
en
ce p
ro
ce
ed
in
g b
y H
ijb
ee
k e
t a
l.
(
20
18
).
T
A
B
LE 1
(Co
nti
nue
d)
13652486, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16570 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Page 9
|
9
MOINET
et
al
.
When experimental treatments receive sufficient P and K applica-
tion, a change in agronomic N use efficiency is also representative of
the long- term effect of SOC on crop yield.
Among the meta- analyses reviewed, some studies tried to cor-
rect for NPK effects on crop yields by assessing the ratio of N, P
and/or K between treatments or aiming to standardise nutrient sup-
ply (Chen et al.,
2018
; Dawe et al.,
2003
; Zavattaro et al.,
2017
). At
the same time, the authors acknowledged that this approach is am-
biguous as a control treatment with equal NPK supply from mineral
fertiliser is required, while relative nutrient mineralisation rates of
organic amendments vary strongly with the quality of the amend-
ment and across locations (Schröder,
2005
). As a result, it is unclear
whether findings from those studies represent the effect of old or
fresh organic matter. In
Table
1
, such studies are classified as ‘uncer-
tain in some cases’.
4.3
|
Conflicting evidence
Findings of the recent meta- analyses vary from negative to neu-
tral to positive yield effects of increasing SOC (or organic amend-
ments;
Table
1
). It is striking that neutral or negative effects are
found much more often when studies correct for N, P and K sup-
ply (
Table
1
, top section). By contrast, a majority of the studies in
which N, P and K supply was included found a positive effect of
SOC on crop yields (
Table
1
, bottom section). Based on the previ-
ous section, we argue that these latter yield effects are not rep-
resentative of expected yield increases when sequestering carbon
over long periods of time in more persistent forms, as required to
mitigate climate change.
In short, increasing SOC stocks does not always increase crop
yields, and can also negatively affect them. Terrer et al. (
2021
)
showed a trade- off between SOC sequestration and plant biomass
production in a meta- analysis of 108 elevated CO
2
experiments
across forests and grassland ecosystems, most likely due to compe-
tition for N between soil and plants. This was affirmed by another
recent study (van der Pol et al.,
2022
), who found that converting
a fallow- grain crop rotation to a continuous grain crop rotation in-
creased grain yield and SOC stocks only when a legume crop was
also included in the rotation (enhancing inputs from biological N
2
fixation). Competition for nutrients (particularly for N) is therefore
a strong candidate explanation for observed negative yield effects.
Another critical point to stress is the context specificity of the
relationship between SOC and yield. From the eight meta- analyses
which gave insights into the longer- term effect of SOC sequestra-
tion on soil fertility and crop yields (i.e. correcting for NPK supply),
four studies investigated the role of soil texture (Chen et al.,
2018
;
Hijbeek et al.,
2017
; Oelofse et al.,
2015
; Zavattaro et al.,
2017
) and
one investigated the role of climate (Chen et al.,
2018
). Considering
soil type, three studies consistently found greater benefits on sandy
soils. Only one study (Oelofse et al.,
2015
) found unclear effects
across eight soil types, with borderline positive effects on coarse
sandy loam and fine sandy clay loam soils but negative effects
on fine sandy soils. A clearer picture was obtained by Zavattaro
et al. (
2017
) who found significantly more benefits on light than on
medium- textured soils (response ratio of 1.051 vs. 0.866). Similarly,
whereas Hijbeek et al. (
2017
) found no overall yield effects of or-
ganic amendments, attainable crop yields were increased on soils
with smaller clay content (an additional 0.13% increase in attainable
yields when using organic amendments for 1% less clay particles).
Finally, when assessing the yield change in the final years of experi-
ments, Chen et al. (
2018
) found a positive yield difference for sandy
soils, but not for any of the other soils investigated (clay, loam or silty
soils) when standardising NPK supply. Using the same data selection,
the authors also found a positive yield effect in tropical climates,
with no significant yield differences in the final experimental year in
the other climate zones (subtropical and continental).
Beyond pedo- climatic conditions, the initial SOC stocks are also
critical. This was very clearly demonstrated in the meta- analysis of
Oldfield et al. (
2019
), who showed that the yield effect of SOC sat-
urates, with no further increase beyond a SOC content of approxi-
mately 2%.
F I G U R E 2
Illustration of the complexity of unravelling causal relations between an increase in soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks and crop
yields. Agricultural practices that increase SOC stocks may also enhance crop yields, suggesting that the evolution of SOC and yield in time
may correlate with no causal link between them. Moreover, even if a causal link exists, determining which SOC or yield is the cause, and
which is the effect, is problematic.
Agricultural practice
(organic
amendment,
reducing tillage,
cover crops)
Crop yield
Soil C
?
?
13652486, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16570 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Page 10
10
|
MOINET
et
al
.
5
|
SOIL- SMART AGRICULTURE
Two key points emerge from our review: (i) the climate mitigation
potential of SOC sequestration is modest, at best, on a global scale,
and context- specific, and (ii) correlations between SOC sequestra-
tion and crop yield are strongly context dependent and it is highly
uncertain whether a causal link exists. Therefore, SOC sequestra-
tion is most certainly not a win- win option under all conditions.
Nevertheless, reaping the win- win between enhancing SOC and
crop yields where and when possible is laudable. From this perspec-
tive, agendas that promote region- specific (or even more localised)
assessments, as proposed recently (Amelung et al.,
2020
), seem
appropriate. Yet even when and where SOC sequestration can go
hand- in- hand with improved soil fertility and crop yields, strategies
to promote one may not be the best suited to promote the other.
The influence of soil type is particularly illustrative of this conflict
(Rusinamhodzi et al.,
2013
). As discussed, clay soils have the larg-
est potential to store SOC, and those that are depleted offer the
greatest opportunity to increase SOC stocks (Angers et al.,
2011
;
Kirschbaum et al.,
2020
; McNally et al.,
2017
), but it is in sandy soils
that the effect of increasing SOC on crop yield may be the largest
(Chen et al.,
2018
; Hijbeek et al.,
2017
; Zavattaro et al.,
2017
). In
F I G U R E 3
Conceptual figure illustrating potential conflicts between soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration and food production. The
figure depicts two hypothetical cases in which crop residues are removed from one field after harvest to be applied as OM inputs to another
crop field. In panel a, residues are transferred from a sandy soil to a clay soil. After some years, a new equilibrium for SOC stock is reached.
The clay soil gains more SOC than the sandy soil loses, due to its higher C stabilisation capacity (Kirschbaum et al.,
2020
). Therefore the
net overall effect is that C is sequestered, to the benefit of climate (provided that no additional N
2
O or CH
4
emissions would arise). The
clay soil also sees crop yield increasing, but not as much as the yield in the sandy soil decreases, due to the stronger yield effect of organic
amendments in sandy than clay soils (Hijbeek et al.,
2017
; Zomer et al.,
2017
). The net effect for yield is that less crops are produced overall.
The reciprocal transfer, in panel b, leads to mirrored effects: Small yield loss in the clay soil and high yield gain in the sandy soil, and large
CO
2
emissions in clay soil and small SOC sequestration in the sandy soil with an overall SOC loss and aggravated climate change, but more
food produced overall. Importantly, assuming that each field is owned by a different farmer, someone always loses. This clearly illustrates
that local win- win scenarios can occur at the expense of fertility elsewhere.
13652486, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16570 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Page 11
|
11
MOINET
et
al
.
a context where organic resources are expensive and in high de-
mand (Giller et al.,
2008
), a strategy targeted at maximising overall
SOC storage for climate change mitigation would dictate that or-
ganic matter should preferably be diverted from sandy soils to clay
soils (Kirschbaum et al.,
2020
), at the expense of the fertility of the
sandy soils. By contrast, a primary focus on soil fertility and yield
improvement would dictate organic matter to be diverted from clay
soils to sandy soils, at the expense of overall SOC storage (
Figure
3
).
Importantly, in the former case, an overall yield decrease would
mean that more land is needed overall to maintain food production
constant, leading to more deforestation or less reforestation and
therefore SOC and above- ground C losses elsewhere.
Ensuring global food security in a stabilised climate is a tre-
mendously complex endeavour. Our findings build on a wealth of
knowledge showing the importance of local knowledge, of devel-
oping locally suited adaptative methods focusing on a wide set of
environmental outcomes, and calling attention to social acceptabil-
ity and economic viability (Giller et al.,
2015
; Pretty,
2018
; Pretty
et al.,
2011
). For example, while it is doubtful that increasing food
production in Europe or North America would yield any benefit
for global food security (Loos et al.,
2014
), the link between food
production and food security is absolutely critical for smallholder
African farmers (Giller et al.,
2021
), with an estimated 7% reduction
in poverty for every 10% increase in yield (Pretty et al.,
2011
). The
hard reality is that difficult choices must be made, and these choices
have to be made locally.
Without a doubt, soils have a critical role to play, and SOM, with
the carbon it contains, is fundamental to maintaining soil fertility and
supporting plant production. Furthermore, SOM is central to the nu-
merous functions delivered by soils (Kopittke et al.,
2022
). This, we
do not question. However, our review demonstrates that the impor-
tance of SOC does not imply that
increasing
SOC stocks necessarily
leads to an increase in yield. More generally, relationships between
the multiple functions of soil are context- specific and numerous
trade- offs exist (Schulte et al.,
2014
; Vazquez et al.,
2021
; Zwetsloot
et al.,
2021
). It is increasingly recognised that greater scientific
knowledge and concurrent management of these soil functions will
be critical (Kopittke et al.,
2022
; Schulte et al.,
2014
). We conclude
that, if we are to ensure food security in a changing climate, let alone
other sustainable development goals, SOC sequestration is simply
not up to the challenge. SOC sequestration is indeed one of many
approaches, one small piece of a very large puzzle, and it should be
treated as such. We argue that including SOC sequestration in the
narrative of global climate change mitigation is ill- suited and we call
for a soil- smart approach, which will not always be ‘climate- smart’.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Marie Zwetsloot, Jan- Willem van Groenigen, Jantiene
Baartman and Rachel Creamer for internal reviews of draft manu-
scripts and suggestions for improvement. We thank Hein ten Berge,
Andy Whitmore and Martin van Ittersum for the exchange of ideas
on how to measure the effect of SOC sequestration on crop yields
in earlier years. We also thank Thom Kuyper for creating the course
‘the carbon dilemma— a soil perspective’ at Wageningen University,
and the MSc students that took part in this course for the lively class
discussions which gave inspiration for the writing process.
CONFLIC T OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
DATA AVAIL ABILIT Y STATEMENT
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were gener-
ated or analysed during the current study.
ORCID
Gabriel Y. K. Moinet
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5347-8847
Renske Hijbeek
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8214-9121
Detlef P. van Vuuren
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0398-2831
Ken E. Giller
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5998-4652
REFERENCES
Alvarez, R., Steinbach, H. S., & De Paepe, J. L. (2017). Cover crop
effects on soils and subsequent crops in the pampas: A meta-
analysis.
Soil and Tillage Research
,
170
, 53– 65.
doi:10.1016/j.still.
2017. 03.005
Amelung, W., Bossio, D., de Vries, W., Kögel- Knabner, I., Lehmann, J.,
Amundson, R., Bol, R., Collins, C., Lal, R., Leifeld, J., Minasny, B.,
Pan, G., Paustian, K., Rumpel, C., Sanderman, J., van Groenigen, J.
W., Mooney, S., van Wesemael, B., Wander, M., & Chabbi, A. (2020).
Towards a global- scale soil climate mitigation strategy.
Nature
Communications
,
11
(1), 1. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s4146
7- 020- 18887 - 7
Amundson, R., & Biardeau, L. (2018). Opinion: Soil carbon sequestration
is an elusive climate mitigation tool.
Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
,
115
(46),
11652– 11656.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.18159 01115
Anderson, C. M., DeFries, R. S., Litterman, R., Matson, P. A., Nepstad,
D. C., Pacala, S., Schlesinger, W. H., Shaw, M. R., Smith, P., Weber,
C., & Field, C. B. (2019). Natural climate solutions are not enough.
Science
,
363
(6430), 933– 934.
https://doi.org/10.1126/scien ce.
aaw2741
Angers, D. A., Arrouays, D., Saby, N. P. A., & Walter, C. (2011). Estimating
and mapping the carbon saturation deficit of French agricultural
topsoils.
Soil Use and Management
,
27
(4), 448– 452.
https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1475- 2743.2011.00366.x
Baveye, P. C., Berthelin, J., Tessier, D., & Lemaire, G. (2018). The “4 per
1000” initiative: A credibility issue for the soil science commu-
nity?
Geoderma
,
309
, 118– 123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geode
rma.2017.05.005
Bossio, D. A., Cook- Patton, S. C., Ellis, P. W., Fargione, J., Sanderman,
J., Smith, P., Wood, S., Zomer, R. J., von Unger, M., Emmer, I. M.,
& Griscom, B. W. (2020). The role of soil carbon in natural cli-
mate solutions.
Nature Sustainability
,
3
(5), 391– 398.
https://doi.
org/10.1038/s4189 3- 020- 0491- z
Bradford, M. A., Carey, C. J., Atwood, L., Bossio, D., Fenichel, E. P.,
Gennet, S., Fargione, J., Fisher, J. R. B., Fuller, E., Kane, D. A.,
Lehmann, J., Oldfield, E. E., Ordway, E. M., Rudek, J., Sanderman,
J., & Wood, S. A. (2019). Soil carbon science for policy and practice.
Nature Sustainability
,
2
(12), 1070– 1072.
https://doi.org/10.1038/
s4189 3- 019- 0431- y
Bradford, M. A., Wieder, W. R., Bonan, G. B., Fierer, N., Raymond, P.
A., & Crowther, T. W. (2016). Managing uncertainty in soil carbon
feedbacks to climate change.
Nature Climate Change
,
6
(8), 751– 758.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclim ate3071
13652486, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16570 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Page 12
12
|
MOINET
et
al
.
Bünemann, E. K., Bongiorno, G., Bai, Z., Creamer, R. E., De Deyn, G.,
de Goede, R., Fleskens, L., Geissen, V., Kuyper, T. W., Mäder, P.,
Pulleman, M., Sukkel, W., van Groenigen, J. W., & Brussaard, L.
(2018). Soil quality— A critical review.
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
,
120
, 105– 125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilb io.2018.01.030
Burke, I. C., Yonker, C. M., Parton, W. J., Cole, C. V., Flach, K., & Schimel,
D. S. (1989). Texture, climate, and cultivation effects on soil organic
matter content in U.S. grassland soils.
Soil Science Society of America
Journal
,
53
(3), 800– 805.
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj 1989.03615
99500 53000 30029x
Chabbi, A., Lehmann, J., Ciais, P., Loescher, H. W., Cotrufo, M. F., Don, A.,
SanClements, M., Schipper, L., Six, J., Smith, P., & Rumpel, C. (2017).
Aligning agriculture and climate policy.
Nature Climate Change
,
7
,
307– 309.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclim ate3286
Chen, J., Sun, X., Zheng, J., Zhang, X., Liu, X., Bian, R., Li, L., Cheng, K.,
Zheng, J., & Pan, G. (2018). Biochar amendment changes tempera-
ture sensitivity of soil respiration and composition of microbial
communities 3 years after incorporation in an organic carbon-
poor dry cropland soil.
Biology and Fertility of Soils
,
54
(2), 175– 188.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s0037 4- 017- 1253- 6
Chenu, C., Angers, D. A., Barre, P., Derrien, D., Arrouays, D., & Balesdent,
J. (2019). Increasing organic stocks in agricultural soils: Knowledge
gaps and potential innovations.
Soil and Tillage Research
,
188
, 41–
52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.04.011
Conant, R. T., Ryan, M. G., Ågren, G. I., Birge, H. E., Davidson, E. A.,
Eliasson, P. E., Evans, S. E., Frey, S. D., Giardina, C. P., Hopkins, F.
M., Hyvönen, R., Kirschbaum, M. U. F., Lavallee, J. M., Leifeld, J.,
Parton, W. J., Steinweg, J. M., Wallenstein, M. D., Wetterstedt, J. Å.
M., & Bradford, M. A. (2011). Temperature and soil organic matter
decomposition rates— Synthesis of current knowledge and a way
forward.
Global Change Biology
,
17
(11), 3392– 3404.
https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365- 2486.2011.02496.x
Cooper, J., Baranski, M., Stewart, G., Nobel- de Lange, M., Bàrberi, P.,
Fließbach, A., Peigné, J., Berner, A., Brock, C., Casagrande, M.,
Crowley, O., David, C., De Vliegher, A., Döring, T. F., Dupont, A., Entz,
M., Grosse, M., Haase, T., Halde, C., … Mäder, P. (2016). Shallow non-
inversion tillage in organic farming maintains crop yields and increases
soil C stocks: A meta- analysis.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
,
36
(1), 22.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s1359 3- 016- 0354- 1
Dawe, D., Dobermann, A., Ladha, J. K., Yadav, R. L., Bao, L., Gupta, R.
K., Lal, P., Panaullah, G., Sariam, O., Singh, Y., Swarup, A., & Zhen,
Q.- X. (2003). Do organic amendments improve yield trends and
profitability in intensive rice systems?
Field Crops Research
,
83
(2),
191– 213.
Du, Y., Cui, B., Zhang, Q., Wang, Z., Sun, J., & Niu, W. (2020). Effects
of manure fertilizer on crop yield and soil properties in China: A
meta- analysis.
Catena
,
193
, 104617.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
catena.2020.104617
Feller, C., & Beare, M. H. (1997). Physical control of soil organic matter
dynamics in the tropics.
Geoderma
,
79
(1– 4), 69– 116.
https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0016 - 7061(97)00039 - 6
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). (2017).
Soil organic carbon: The hidden potential.
https://www.fao.org/3/
I6937 EN/i6937 en.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). (2019).
Recarbonization of global soils— A dynamic response to offset
global emissions.
http://www.fao.org/3/i7235 en/I7235 EN.pdf
Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M. W., O'Sullivan, M., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D.
C. E., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J.,
Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Anthoni,
P., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., … Zeng, J. (2022). Global
carbon budget 2021.
Earth System Science Data
,
14
(4), 1917– 2005.
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd- 14- 1917- 2022
Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann,
T., Beringer, T., Garcia, W. d. O., Hartmann, J., Khanna, T., Luderer,
G., Nemet, G. F., Rogelj, J., Smith, P., Vicente, J. L. V., Wilcox, J.,
Dominguez, M. d. M. Z., & Minx, J. C. (2018). Negative emissions—
Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects.
Environmental Research
Letters
,
13
(6), 063002.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/aabf9f
Giller, K. E. (2020). The food security conundrum of sub- Saharan Africa.
Global Food Security
,
26
, 100431.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.
2020.100431
Giller, K. E., Andersson, J. A., Corbeels, M., Kirkegaard, J., Mortensen, D.,
Erenstein, O., & Vanlauwe, B. (2015). Beyond conservation agricul-
ture.
Frontiers in Plant Science
,
6
, 14.
Giller, K. E., Delaune, T., Silva, J. V., van Wijk, M., Hammond, J.,
Descheemaeker, K., van de Ven, G., Schut, A. G. T., Taulya, G.,
Chikowo, R., & Andersson, J. A. (2021). Small farms and develop-
ment in sub- Saharan Africa: Farming for food, for income or for
lack of better options?
Food Security
,
13
, 1431– 1454.
https://doi.
org/10.1007/s1257 1- 021- 01209 - 0
Giller, K. E., Leeuwis, C., Andersson, J. A., Andriesse, W., Brouwer, A.,
Frost, P., Hebinck, P., Heitkönig, I., van Ittersum, M. K., Koning, N.,
Ruben, R., Slingerland, M., Udo, H., Veldkamp, T., van de Vijver, C.,
van Wijk, M. T., & Windmeijer, P. (2008). Competing claims on natu-
ral resources: What role for science?
Ecology and Society
,
13
(2), 34.
https://www.jstor.org/stabl e/26267992
Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva,
D. A., Schlesinger, W. H., Shoch, D., Siikamäki, J. V., Smith, P.,
Woodbury, P., Zganjar, C., Blackman, A., Campari, J., Conant, R. T.,
Delgado, C., Elias, P., Gopalakrishna, T., Hamsik, M. R., … Fargione,
J. (2017). Natural climate solutions.
Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
,
114
(44), 11645–
11650.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.17104 65114
Guenet, B., Gabrielle, B., Chenu, C., Arrouays, D., Balesdent, J., Bernoux,
M., Bruni, E., Caliman, J.- P., Cardinael, R., Chen, S., Ciais, P., Desbois,
D., Fouche, J., Frank, S., Henault, C., Lugato, E., Naipal, V., Nesme,
T., Obersteiner, M., … Zhou, F. (2021). Can N
2
O emissions offset the
benefits from soil organic carbon storage?
Global Change Biology
,
27
(2), 237– 256.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15342
Han, X., Xu, C., Dungait, J. A. J., Bol, R., Wang, X., Wu, W., & Meng,
F. (2018). Straw incorporation increases crop yield and soil or-
ganic carbon sequestration but varies under different natural
conditions and farming practices in China: A system analysis.
Biogeosciences
,
15
(7), 1933– 1946.
https://doi.org/10.5194/
bg- 15- 1933- 2018
Hijbeek, R., van Ittersum, M. K., ten Berge, H. & Whitmore, A. P. (2018).
Evidence review indicates a re- think on the impact of organic in-
puts and soil organic matter on crop yield. Paper presented to
the International Fertiliser Society at a Conference in Cambridge,
UK, 7th December 2018. Proceeding 826. International Fertiliser
Society.
Hijbeek, R., van Ittersum, M. K., ten Berge, H. F. M., Gort, G., Spiegel,
H., & Whitmore, A. P. (2017). Do organic inputs matter— A meta-
analysis of additional yield effects for arable crops in Europe.
Plant and Soil
,
411
(1– 2), 293– 303.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s1110
4- 016- 3031- x
Hoyle, F. C., O'Leary, R. A., & Murphy, D. V. (2016). Spatially governed
climate factors dominate management in determining the quantity
and distribution of soil organic carbon in dryland agricultural sys-
tems.
Scientific Reports
,
6
(1), 31468.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep3
1468
IPCC. (2019).
Climate change and land: An IPCC special report on climate
change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land manage-
ment, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems
[P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson- Delmotte, H.- O.
Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen,
M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J.
Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, …, J. Malley (Eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, 896 pp.
https://doi.org/10.1017/97810 09157988
IPCC. (2021).
Climate change 2021: The physical science basis.
Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the
13652486, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16570 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Page 13
|
13
MOINET
et
al
.
intergovernmental panel on climate change
[V. Masson- Delmotte,
P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y.
Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.
B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, &
B. Zhou (Eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, in press.
https://doi.
org/10.1017/97810 09157896
IPCC. (2022).
Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change.
Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate hange
[P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R.
Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak,
S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa,
S. Luz, & J. Malley (Eds.)]. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.
org/10.1017/97810 09157926
Islam, M. U., Guo, Z., Jiang, F., & Peng, X. (2022). Does straw return in-
crease crop yield in the wheat- maize cropping system in China?
A meta- analysis.
Field Crops Research
,
279
, 108447.
https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108447
Janzen, H. H. (2006). The soil carbon dilemma: Shall we hoard it or
use it?
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
,
38
(3), 419– 424.
https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.soilb io.2005.10.008
Janzen, H. H., van Groenigen, K. J., Powlson, D. S., Schwinghamer, T.,
& van Groenigen, J. W. (2022). Photosynthetic limits on carbon
sequestration in croplands.
Geoderma
,
416
, 115810.
https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geode rma.2022.115810
Jeffery, S., Abalos, D., Prodana, M., Bastos, A. C., van Groenigen, J. W.,
Hungate, B. A., & Verheijen, F. (2017). Biochar boosts tropical but
not temperate crop yields.
Environmental Research Letters
,
12
(5),
053001.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/aa67bd
Johnston, A. E., Poulton, P. R., & Coleman, K. (2009). Chapter 1 soil or-
ganic matter. In
Advances in agronomy
(Vol.
101
, pp. 1– 57). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065 - 2113(08)00801 - 8
Kirkels, F. M. S. A., Cammeraat, L. H., & Kuhn, N. J. (2014). The fate of soil
organic carbon upon erosion, transport and deposition in agricul-
tural landscapes— A review of different concepts.
Geomorphology
,
226
, 94– 105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomo rph.2014.07.023
Kirschbaum, M. U. F., Moinet, G. Y. K., Hedley, C. B., Beare, M. H., &
McNally, S. R. (2020). A conceptual model of carbon stabilisa-
tion based on patterns observed in different soils.
Soil Biology
and Biochemistry
,
141
, 107683.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilb
io.2019.107683
Knotters, M., Teuling, K., Reijneveld, A., Lesschen, J. P., & Kuikman, P.
(2022). Changes in organic matter contents and carbon stocks
in Dutch soils, 1998– 2018.
Geoderma
,
414
, 115751.
https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geode rma.2022.115751
Kopittke, P. M., Berhe, A. A., Carrillo, Y., Cavagnaro, T. R., Chen, D., Chen,
Q.- L., Román Dobarco, M., Dijkstra, F. A., Field, D. J., Grundy, M.
J., He, J.- Z., Hoyle, F. C., Kögel- Knabner, I., Lam, S. K., Marschner,
P., Martinez, C., McBratney, A. B., McDonald- Madden, E., Menzies,
N. W., … Minasny, B. (2022). Ensuring planetary survival: The cen-
trality of organic carbon in balancing the multifunctional nature of
soils.
Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology
,
52
,
1– 17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10643 389.2021.2024484
Kuyah, S., Whitney, C. W., Jonsson, M., Sileshi, G. W., Öborn, I., Muthuri,
C. W., & Luedeling, E. (2019). Agroforestry delivers a win- win
solution for ecosystem services in sub- Saharan Africa. A meta-
analysis.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
,
39
(5), 47.
https://
doi.org/10.1007/s1359 3- 019- 0589- 8
Lal, R. (2001). World cropland soils as a source or sink for atmospheric
carbon. In
Advances in agronomy
(Vol.
71
, pp. 145– 191). Academic
Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065 - 2113(01)71014 - 0
Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate
change and food security.
Science
,
304
(5677), 1623– 1627.
https://
doi.org/10.1126/scien ce.1097396
Lal, R. (2018). Digging deeper: A holistic perspective of factors affecting
soil organic carbon sequestration in agroecosystems.
Global Change
Biology
,
24
(8), 3285– 3301.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14054
Lal, R., Monger, C., Nave, L., & Smith, P. (2021). The role of soil in reg-
ulation of climate.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences
,
376
(1834), 1834. Scopus.
https://doi.
org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0084
Lal, R., Smith, P., Jungkunst, H. F., Mitsch, W. J., Lehmann, J., Nair, P. K.
R., McBratney, A. B., Sá, J. C. M., Schneider, J., Zinn, Y. L., Skorupa,
A. L. A., Zhang, H.- L., Minasny, B., Srinivasrao, C., & Ravindranath,
N. H. (2018). The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial eco-
systems.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
,
73
(6), 145A– 152A.
https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.73.6.145A
Lehmann, J., & Kleber, M. (2015). The contentious nature of soil organic
matter.
Nature
,
528
(7580), 60– 68.
https://doi.org/10.1038/natur
e16069
Li, P., Li, Y., Xu, L., Zhang, H., Shen, X., Xu, H., Jiao, J., Li, H., & Hu, F.
(2021). Crop yield- soil quality balance in double cropping in China's
upland by organic amendments: A meta- analysis.
Geoderma
,
403
,
115197.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geode rma.2021.115197
Liang, C., Schimel, J. P., & Jastrow, J. D. (2017). The importance of
anabolism in microbial control over soil carbon storage.
Nature
Microbiology
,
2
(8), 17105.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nmicr
obiol.2017.105
Loos, J., Abson, D. J., Chappell, M. J., Hanspach, J., Mikulcak, F., Tichit,
M., & Fischer, J. (2014). Putting meaning back into “sustainable in-
tensification”.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
,
12
(6), 356–
361.
https://doi.org/10.1890/130157
Lugato, E., Leip, A., & Jones, A. (2018). Mitigation potential of soil car-
bon management overestimated by neglecting N
2
O emissions.
Nature Climate Change
,
8
(3), 3– 223.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s4155
8- 018- 0087- z
Luo, G., Li, L., Friman, V.- P., Guo, J., Guo, S., Shen, Q., & Ling, N. (2018).
Organic amendments increase crop yields by improving microbe-
mediated soil functioning of agroecosystems: A meta- analysis.
Soil
Biology and Biochemistry
,
124
, 105– 115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
soilb io.2018.06.002
Mayer, A., Hausfather, Z., Jones, A. D., & Silver, W. L. (2018). The poten-
tial of agricultural land management to contribute to lower global
surface temperatures.
Science Advances
,
4
(8), eaaq0932.
https://
doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaq0932
McNally, S. R., Beare, M. H., Curtin, D., Meenken, E. D., Kelliher, F. M.,
Pereira, R. C., Shen, Q., & Baldock, J. (2017). Soil carbon sequestra-
tion potential of permanent pasture and continuous cropping soils
in New Zealand.
Global Change Biology
,
23
(11), 4544– 4555.
https://
doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13720
Miller, A. J., Amundson, R., Burke, I. C., & Yonker, C. (2004). The effect of
climate and cultivation on soil organic C and N.
Biogeochemistry
,
67
(1),
57– 72.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BIOG.00000 15302.16640.a5
Minasny, B., Malone, B. P., McBratney, A. B., Angers, D. A., Arrouays, D.,
Chambers, A., Chaplot, V., Chen, Z.- S., Cheng, K., Das, B. S., Field,
D. J., Gimona, A., Hedley, C. B., Hong, S. Y., Mandal, B., Marchant,
B. P., Martin, M., McConkey, B. G., Mulder, V. L., … Winowiecki, L.
(2017). Soil carbon 4 per mille.
Geoderma
,
292
, 59– 86.
https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geode rma.2017.01.002
Moinet, G. Y. K., Cieraad, E., Hunt, J. E., Fraser, A., Turnbull, M. H., &
Whitehead, D. (2016). Soil heterotrophic respiration is insensi-
tive to changes in soil water content but related to microbial ac-
cess to organic matter.
Geoderma
,
274
, 68– 78. Scopus.
https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geode rma.2016.03.027
Moinet, G. Y. K., Dhami, M. K., Hunt, J. E., Podolyan, A., Liáng, L. L.,
Schipper, L. A., Whitehead, D., Nuñez, J., Nascente, A., & Millard,
P. (2021). Soil microbial sensitivity to temperature remains un-
changed despite community compositional shifts along geothermal
gradients.
Global Change Biology
,
27
(23), 6217– 6231.
https://doi.
org/10.1111/gcb.15878
Moinet, G. Y. K., Hunt, J. E., Kirschbaum, M. U. F., Morcom, C. P.,
Midwood, A. J., & Millard, P. (2018). The temperature sensitivity
of soil organic matter decomposition is constrained by microbial
13652486, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16570 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Page 14
14
|
MOINET
et
al
.
access to substrates.
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
,
116
, 333– 339.
Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilb io.2017.10.031
Moinet, G. Y. K., Moinet, M., Hunt, J. E., Rumpel, C., Chabbi, A., & Millard,
P. (2020). Temperature sensitivity of decomposition decreases
with increasing soil organic matter stability.
Science of the Total
Environment
,
704
. Scopus, 135460.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito
tenv.2019.135460
Oelofse, M., Markussen, B., Knudsen, L., Schelde, K., Olesen, J. E.,
Jensen, L. S., & Bruun, S. (2015). Do soil organic carbon levels affect
potential yields and nitrogen use efficiency? An analysis of winter
wheat and spring barley field trials.
European Journal of Agronomy
,
66
, 62– 73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2015.02.009
Oldfield, E. E., Bradford, M. A., & Wood, S. A. (2019). Global meta-
analysis of the relationship between soil organic matter and
crop yields.
The Soil
,
5
(1), 15– 32.
https://doi.org/10.5194/
soil- 5- 15- 2019
Pan, G., Smith, P., & Pan, W. (2009). The role of soil organic matter in
maintaining the productivity and yield stability of cereals in China.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
,
129
(1), 344– 348.
https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.10.008
Paustian, K., Andrén, O., Janzen, H. H., Lal, R., Smith, P., Tian, G., Tiessen,
H., Van Noordwijk, M., & Woomer, P. L. (1997). Agricultural soils as
a sink to mitigate CO
2
emissions.
Soil Use and Management
,
13
(s4),
230– 244.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475- 2743.1997.tb005 94.x
Paustian, K., Lehmann, J., Ogle, S., Reay, D., Robertson, G. P., & Smith, P.
(2016). Climate- smart soils.
Nature
,
532
(7597), 49– 57.
https://doi.
org/10.1038/natur e17174
Poulton, P., Johnston, J., Macdonald, A., White, R., & Powlson, D. (2018).
Major limitations to achieving “4 per 1000” increases in soil organic
carbon stock in temperate regions: Evidence from long- term exper-
iments at Rothamsted research, United Kingdom.
Global Change
Biology
,
24
(6), 2563– 2584.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14066
Powlson, D. S., Whitmore, A. P., & Goulding, K. W. T. (2011). Soil carbon
sequestration to mitigate climate change: A critical re- examination
to identify the true and the false.
European Journal of Soil Science
,
62
(1), 42– 55.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2389.2010.01342.x
Pretty, J. (2018). Intensification for redesigned and sustainable ag-
ricultural systems.
Science
,
362
(6417), eaav0294.
https://doi.
org/10.1126/scien ce.aav0294
Pretty, J., Toulmin, C., & Williams, S. (2011). Sustainable intensification in
African agriculture.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability
,
9
(1), 5– 24.
https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2010.0583
Ravensbergen, A. P. P., Chamberlin, J., Craufurd, P., Shehu, B. M., &
Hijbeek, R. (2021). Adapting the QUEFTS model to predict at-
tainable yields when training data are characterized by imper-
fect management.
Field Crops Research
,
266
, 108126.
https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108126
Rumpel, C., Amiraslani, F., Chenu, C., Garcia Cardenas, M., Kaonga, M.,
Koutika, L.- S., Ladha, J., Madari, B., Shirato, Y., Smith, P., Soudi,
B., Soussana, J.- F., Whitehead, D., & Wollenberg, E. (2019). The
4p1000 initiative: Opportunities, limitations and challenges for im-
plementing soil organic carbon sequestration as a sustainable de-
velopment strategy.
Ambio
,
49
, 350– 360.
https://doi.org/10.1007/
s1328 0- 019- 01165 - 2
Rusinamhodzi, L., Corbeels, M., Zingore, S., Nyamangara, J., & Giller, K.
E. (2013). Pushing the envelope? Maize production intensification
and the role of cattle manure in recovery of degraded soils in small-
holder farming areas of Zimbabwe.
Field Crops Research
,
147
, 40–
53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.03.014
Sanderman, J., Hengl, T., & Fiske, G. J. (2017). Soil carbon debt of
12,000 years of human land use.
Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
,
114
(36), 9575–
9580.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.17061 03114
Schjønning, P., Jensen, J. L., Bruun, S., Jensen, L. S., Christensen, B. T.,
Munkholm, L. J., Oelofse, M., Baby, S., & Knudsen, L. (2018). The
role of soil organic matter for maintaining crop yields: Evidence for
a renewed conceptual basis. In
Advances in agronomy
(Vol.
150
, pp.
35– 79). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2018.03.001
Schröder, J. (2005). Revisiting the agronomic benefits of manure: A cor-
rect assessment and exploitation of its fertilizer value spares the
environment.
Bioresource Technology
,
96
(2), 253– 261.
https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biort ech.2004.05.015
Schulte, R. P. O., Creamer, R. E., Donnellan, T., Farrelly, N., Fealy, R.,
O'Donoghue, C., & O'HUallachain, D. (2014). Functional land
management: A framework for managing soil-
based ecosys-
tem services for the sustainable intensification of agriculture.
Environmental Science & Policy
,
38
, 45– 58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2013.10.002
Shetty, R., Vidya, C. S.- N., Prakash, N. B., Lux, A., & Vaculík, M. (2021).
Aluminum toxicity in plants and its possible mitigation in acid soils
by biochar: A review.
The Science of the Total Environment
,
765
,
142744.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito tenv.2020.142744
Six, J., Conant, R. T., Paul, E. A., & Paustian, K. (2002). Stabilization mech-
anisms of soil organic matter: Implications for C- saturation of soils.
Plant and Soil
,
241
(2), 155– 176.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:10161
25726789
Smith, P. (2012). Soils and climate change.
Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability
,
4
(5), 539– 544.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.
2012.06.005
Smith, P. (2016). Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emis-
sion technologies.
Global Change Biology
,
22
(3), 1315– 1324.
https://
doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13178
Smith, P., Adams, J., Beerling, D. J., Beringer, T., Calvin, K. V., Fuss, S.,
Griscom, B., Hagemann, N., Kammann, C., Kraxner, F., Minx, J. C.,
Popp, A., Renforth, P., Vicente Vicente, J. L., & Keesstra, S. (2019).
Land- management options for greenhouse gas removal and their
impacts on ecosystem services and the sustainable development
goals.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources
,
44
(1), 255– 286.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annur ev- envir on- 10171 8- 033129
Smith, P., House, J. I., Bustamante, M., Sobocká, J., Harper, R., Pan,
G., West, P. C., Clark, J. M., Adhya, T., Rumpel, C., Paustian, K.,
Kuikman, P., Cotrufo, M. F., Elliott, J. A., McDowell, R., Griffiths,
R. I., Asakawa, S., Bondeau, A., Jain, A. K., … Pugh, T. A. M. (2016).
Global change pressures on soils from land use and management.
Global Change Biology
,
22
(3), 1008– 1028.
https://doi.org/10.1111/
gcb.13068
Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B.,
Ogle, S., O'Mara, F., Rice, C., Scholes, B., Sirotenko, O., Howden, M.,
McAllister, T., Pan, G., Romanenkov, V., Schneider, U., Towprayoon,
S., Wattenbach, M., & Smith, J. (2008). Greenhouse gas mitiga-
tion in agriculture.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences
,
363
(1492), 789– 813.
https://doi.org/10.1098/
rstb.2007.2184
Sommer, R., & Bossio, D. (2014). Dynamics and climate change miti-
gation potential of soil organic carbon sequestration.
Journal of
Environmental Management
,
144
, 83– 87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvm an.2014.05.017
Soussana, J.- F., Lutfalla, S., Ehrhardt, F., Rosenstock, T., Lamanna,
C., Havlík, P., Richards, M., Wollenberg, E. (Lini), Chotte, J.- L.,
Torquebiau, E., Ciais, P., Smith, P., & Lal, R. (2019). Matching policy
and science: Rationale for the ‘4 per 1000— Soils for food security
and climate’ initiative.
Soil and Tillage Research
,
188
, 3– 15.
https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.12.002
Stewart, C. E., Paustian, K., Conant, R. T., Plante, A. F., & Six, J.
(2007). Soil carbon saturation: Concept, evidence and evalu-
ation.
Biogeochemistry
,
86
(1), 19– 31.
https://doi.org/10.1007/
s1053 3- 007- 9140- 0
Terrer, C., Phillips, R. P., Hungate, B. A., Rosende, J., Pett- Ridge, J., Craig,
M. E., van Groenigen, K. J., Keenan, T. F., Sulman, B. N., Stocker, B.
D., Reich, P. B., Pellegrini, A. F. A., Pendall, E., Zhang, H., Evans, R.
D., Carrillo, Y., Fisher, J. B., Van Sundert, K., Vicca, S., & Jackson,
R. B. (2021). A trade- off between plant and soil carbon storage
13652486, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16570 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Page 15
|
15
MOINET
et
al
.
under elevated CO
2
.
Nature
,
591
(7851), 7851– 7603.
https://doi.
org/10.1038/s4158 6- 021- 03306 - 8
Thapa, R., Mirsky, S. B., & Tully, K. L. (2018). Cover crops reduce nitrate
leaching in agroecosystems: A global meta- analysis.
Journal of
Environmental Quality
,
47
(6), 1400– 1411.
https://doi.org/10.2134/
jeq20 18.03.0107
Tian, H., Xu, R., Canadell, J. G., Thompson, R. L., Winiwarter, W.,
Suntharalingam, P., Davidson, E. A., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B.,
Janssens- Maenhout, G., Prather, M. J., Regnier, P., Pan, N., Pan,
S., Peters, G. P., Shi, H., Tubiello, F. N., Zaehle, S., Zhou, F., … Yao,
Y. (2020). A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide
sources and sinks.
Nature
,
586
, 7828.
https://doi.org/10.1038/
s4158 6- 020- 2780- 0
van der Pol, L. K., Robertson, A., Schipanski, M., Calderon, F. J.,
Wallenstein, M. D., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2022). Addressing the soil
carbon dilemma: Legumes in intensified rotations regenerate soil
carbon while maintaining yields in semi- arid dryland wheat farms.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
,
330
, 107906.
https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.107906
van Gestel, N., Shi, Z., van Groenigen, K. J., Osenberg, C. W., Andresen,
L. C., Dukes, J. S., Hovenden, M. J., Luo, Y., Michelsen, A., Pendall,
E., Reich, P. B., Schuur, E. A. G., & Hungate, B. A. (2018). Predicting
soil carbon loss with warming.
Nature
,
554
(7693), E4– E5.
https://
doi.org/10.1038/natur e25745
van Ittersum, M. K., & Rabbinge, R. (1997). Concepts in production ecol-
ogy for analysis and quantification of agricultural input- output
combinations.
Field Crops Research
,
52
(3), 197– 208.
https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0378 - 4290(97)00037 - 3
van Vuuren, D. P., Deetman, S., van Vliet, J., van den Berg, M., van
Ruijven, B. J., & Koelbl, B. (2013). The role of negative CO
2
emis-
sions for reaching 2°C— Insights from integrated assessment mod-
elling.
Climatic Change
,
118
(1), 15– 27.
https://doi.org/10.1007/
s1058 4- 012- 0680- 5
Vanlauwe, B., Kihara, J., Chivenge, P., Pypers, P., Coe, R., & Six, J. (2011).
Agronomic use efficiency of N fertilizer in maize- based systems in
sub- Saharan Africa within the context of integrated soil fertility
management.
Plant and Soil
,
339
(1), 35– 50.
https://doi.org/10.1007/
s1110 4- 010- 0462- 7
Vazquez, C., de Goede, R. G. M., Rutgers, M., de Koeijer, T. J., & Creamer,
R. E. (2021). Assessing multifunctionality of agricultural soils:
Reducing the biodiversity trade- off.
European Journal of Soil Science
,
72
(4), 1624– 1639.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13019
Watts, C. W., & Dexter, A. R. (1997). The influence of organic matter
in reducing the destabilization of soil by simulated tillage.
Soil and
Tillage Research
,
42
(4), 253– 275.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167
- 1987(97)00009 - 3
Wei, W., Yan, Y., Cao, J., Christie, P., Zhang, F., & Fan, M. (2016). Effects
of combined application of organic amendments and fertilizers on
crop yield and soil organic matter: An integrated analysis of long-
term experiments.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
,
225
, 86–
92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.04.004
Wendt, J. W., & Hauser, S. (2013). An equivalent soil mass procedure
for monitoring soil organic carbon in multiple soil layers.
European
Journal of Soil Science
,
64
(1), 58– 65.
https://doi.org/10.1111/
ejss.12002
Zavattaro, L., Bechini, L., Grignani, C., van Evert, F. K., Mallast, J., Spiegel,
H., Sandén, T., Pecio, A., Giráldez Cervera, J. V., Guzmán, G.,
Vanderlinden, K., D'Hose, T., Ruysschaert, G., & ten Berge, H. F.
M. (2017). Agronomic effects of bovine manure: A review of long-
term European field experiments.
European Journal of Agronomy
,
90
,
127– 138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.07.010
Zomer, R. J., Bossio, D. A., Sommer, R., & Verchot, L. V. (2017). Global
sequestration potential of increased organic carbon in cropland
soils.
Scientific Reports
,
7
(1), 15554.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s4159
8- 017- 15794 - 8
Zwetsloot, M. J., van Leeuwen, J., Hemerik, L., Martens, H., Josa, I. S.,
de Broek, M. V., Debeljak, M., Rutgers, M., Sandén, T., Wall, D. P.,
Jones, A., & Creamer, R. E. (2021). Soil multifunctionality: Synergies
and trade- offs across European climatic zones and land uses.
European Journal of Soil Science
,
72
(4), 1640– 1654.
https://doi.
org/10.1111/ejss.13051
How to cite this article:
Moinet, G. Y. K., Hijbeek, R., van
Vuuren, D. P., & Giller, K. E. (2023). Carbon for soils, not soils
for carbon.
Global Change Biology
,
00
, 1–15.
https://doi.
org/10.1111/gcb.16570
13652486, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16570 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Document Outline