Page 93 - Read online

Page 10 of 20 Lal. Carbon Footprints 2026, 5, 10

Table 2. Co-benefits of soil carbon sequestration for mitigation of adaptation to anthropogenic climate change
Country Region/Land use Practice Co-benefits References

Australia Queensland Carbon farming Creating native habitat, preventing erosion Kragt et al. [58]
Global - Cropland management Drought risk reduction Iizumi and Wagai [59]
Canada Alberta Sustainable agriculture Reduce CH 4 and N 2 Oemissions Duncan et al. [60]
Conservation of biodiversity, economic and
Australia Oceania Carbon farming Baumber et al. [61,62]
cultural services for indigenous communities
Rural development, biodiversity, Tschora and
Togo West Africa Agroforestry
conservation, and reduction in deforestation Cherubini [63]
Biodiversity, conservation, improvement of
Coastal Wetlands of
Australia Restoration of wetlands water quality, and increase blue carbon Hagger et al. [50]
Queensland
storage
Reduced N losses, increased crop yield, and
Global - Enhanced weathering Vienne et al. [64]
sequestration of SIC
Increase in plant biomass and nutrient
Global - Enhanced weather with biochar Honvault et al. [53]
uptake
Regenerative
Australia/USA Global scalability Ecological, economic, and social benefits Gosnell et al. [65]
agriculture/Managed grazing
Australia Regenerative agriculture Economic and environmental stewardship Bless et al. [66]
Human-nature value relation, adaptation of
Canada - Biomass input agriculture, reduced soil erosion, enhanced Angers et al. [54]
biodiversity
C credits, biodiversity conservation,
Global Biodiverse forests Biodiverse C-rich forests Pichancourt et al. [67]
socioeconomic co-benefits
Europe - Cropland management No significant emission reduction Frank et al. [68]

fertility. Among other co-benefits are improvements in amount and quality of food produced and increase in
above and belowground biodiversity. However, there are tradeoffs, and important among these are that
sequestration of C in land-based sinks with adoption of CA may increase emission of N O, aggravate risks of
2
soil compaction/crusting, increase incidence of pests and pathogens including weeds and thus reduce
agronomic productivity. Above all, the magnitude of sequestration of atmospheric CO in soil may be finite
2
and offset only a small fraction of GHG emissions from fossil fuel combustion and other Anthropogenic
activities.

ECOLOGICAL LIMITS OF SOIL CARBON SEQUESTRATION
With proper implementation, C sequestration in agro-ecosystems can transform agriculture from being a
source into a net C-negative industry. However, soils differ widely in their potential of C sequestration
because of the C saturation capacity, which may depend on land use history, soil and crop management, etc.
Thus, it is pertinent to know the biophysical limits to C sequestration prior to identifying and assessing the
[18]
magnitude of drawdown that can be expected over a known period (by 2030, 2050, or 2100).

Georgiou et al. expressed the need for assessing whether soils exhibit the maximum capacity for storing
[18]
SOC within organo-mineral associations (i.e., stable microaggregates). However, Georgiou et al. questioned
the utility of the principle of soil C saturation .
[18]

It is also reported that sequestration of atmospheric CO in soil may not happen under all agroecological
2
environments. In European croplands, for example, Frank et al. observed that no significant contribution
[68]
to emission reduction targets was realized even with good management. The lack of response to C
sequestration in some soils indicates the tremendous complexity of the soil C sequestration process,
balancing adaptation/mitigation of ACC on the one hand and advancing food production and nutritional