To limit warming to well below 2°C, most scenario projections rely on greenhouse gas removal technologies (GGRTs); one such GGRT uses soil carbon sequestration (SCS) in agricultural land. In addition to their role in mitigating climate change, SCS practices play a role in delivering agroecosystem resilience, climate change adaptability and food security. Environmental heterogeneity and differences in agricultural practices challenge the practical implementation of SCS, and our analysis addresses the associated knowledge gap. Previous assessments have focused on global potentials, but there is a need among policymakers to operationalise SCS. Here, we assess a range of practices already proposed to deliver SCS, and distil these into a subset of specific measures. We provide a multidisciplinary summary of the barriers and potential incentives towards practical implementation of these measures. First, we identify specific practices with potential for both a positive impact on SCS at farm level and an uptake rate compatible with global impact. These focus on: (a) optimising crop primary productivity (e.g. nutrient optimisation, pH management, irrigation); (b) reducing soil disturbance and managing soil physical properties (e.g. improved rotations, minimum till); (c) minimising deliberate removal of C or lateral transport via erosion processes (e.g. support measures, bare fallow reduction); (d) addition of C produced outside the system (e.g. organic manure amendments, biochar addition); (e) provision of additional C inputs within the cropping system (e.g. agroforestry, cover cropping). We then consider economic and non‐cost barriers and incentives for land managers implementing these measures, along with the potential externalised impacts of implementation. This offers a framework and reference point for holistic assessment of the impacts of SCS. Finally, we summarise and discuss the ability of extant scientific approaches to quantify the technical potential and externalities of SCS measures, and the barriers and incentives to their implementation in global agricultural systems.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The aim of the study is to assess the efficacy of seaweed for circular nutrient management to reduce eutrophication levels in the aquatic environment. We performed a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of two reference waste management systems treating seaweed as biowaste, i.e. landfill disposal and combustion, and an alternative scenario using the seaweed Saccharina latissima as a resource for biobased fertilizer production. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods were improved by using a cradle-to-cradle approach, quantifying fate factors for nitrogen and phosphorus loss from fertilized agriculture to the aquatic environment. We also differentiated between nitrogen- and phosphorus-limited marine water to improve the traditional freshwater impact category, making this indicator suitable for decision support in relation to coastal water management schemes. Offshore cultivation of Saccharina latissima with an average productivity of 150Mg/km(2) in Danish waters in 2014 was applied to a cultivation scenario of 208km(2). The bioresource scenario performs better than conventional biowaste management systems, delivering a net reduction in aquatic eutrophication levels of 32.29kgNeq. and 16.58kgPO4(3-)eq. per Mg (dry weight) of seaweed, quantified by the ReCiPe and CML impact assessment methods, respectively. Seaweed cultivation, harvest and reuse of excess nutrients from the aquatic environment is a promising approach for sustainable resource cycling in a future regenerative economy that exploits manmade emissions as a resource for closed loop biobased production while significantly reducing eutrophication levels in 3 out of 7 Danish river basin districts. We obtained at least 10% bioextraction of phosphorus manmade emissions (10%, 89% and >100%) and contributed significantly to local nitrogen reduction goals according to the Water Framework Directive (23%, 78% and >100% of the target).