Tillage and soil carbon sequestration—What do we really know?

Baker, John M.; Ochsner, Tyson; Venterea, Rodney T.; Griffis, Timothy J.

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.014

Cited by 1,078 publications

(683 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

632

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While SOM is more dynamic in the topsoil, also subsoil OM is actively involved in C cycling (Baisden and Parfitt 2007;Don et al 2009). Neglecting deeper soil C dynamics could lead to misinterpretation of management effects as the subsoil SOC trend may be opposite to that observed in the topsoil (Baker et al 2007).…”

Section: Experimental Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organic Farming and Soil Carbon Sequestration: What Do We Really Know About the Benefits?

Leifeld

Fuhrer

2010

AMBIO

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organic farming is believed to improve soil fertility by enhancing soil organic matter (SOM) contents. An important co-benefit would be the sequestration of carbon from atmospheric CO 2 . Such a positive effect has been suggested based on data from field experiments though many studies were not designed to address the issue of carbon sequestration. The aim of our study was to examine published data in order to identify possible flaws such as missing a proper baseline, carbon mass measurements, or lack of a clear distinction between conventional and organic farming practices, thereby attributing effects of specific practices to organic farming, which are not uniquely organic. A total of 68 data sets were analyzed from 32 peer-reviewed publications aiming to compare conventional with organic farming. The analysis revealed that after conversion, soil C content (SOC) in organic systems increased annually by 2.2% on average, whereas in conventional systems SOC did not change significantly. The majority of publications reported SOC concentrations rather than amounts thus neglecting possible changes in soil bulk density. 34 out of 68 data sets missed a true control with well-defined starting conditions. In 37 out of 50 cases, the amount of organic fertilizer in the organic system exceeded that applied in the compared conventional system, and in half of the cases crop rotations differed between systems. In the few studies where crop rotation and organic fertilization were comparable in both systems no consistent difference in SOC was found. From this data analysis, we conclude that the claim for beneficial effects of organic farming on SOC is premature and that reported advantages of organic farming for SOC are largely determined by higher and often disproportionate application of organic fertilizer compared to conventional farming.

show abstract

Section: Experimental Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organic Farming and Soil Carbon Sequestration: What Do We Really Know About the Benefits?

Leifeld

Fuhrer

2010

AMBIO

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Information on the effect of maize stover removal under no-till management on soil C from long-term studies has not been available to date [21]. Most of the research on SOC in agricultural production systems focused on C in the 0 to 30 cm depth [22][23][24][25][26][27]. A few studies in which soil sampling has been conducted at greater depths indicate that production agriculture affects soil C deeper in the soil profile [28,29].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil Carbon Sequestration by Switchgrass and No-Till Maize Grown for Bioenergy

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Net benefits of bioenergy crops, including maize and perennial grasses such as switchgrass, are a function of several factors including the soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestered by these crops. Life cycle assessments (LCA) for bioenergy crops have been conducted using models in which SOC information is usually from the top 30 to 40 cm. Information on the effects of crop management practices on SOC has been limited so LCA models have largely not included any management practice effects. In the first 9 years of a long-term C sequestration study in eastern Nebraska, USA, switchgrass and maize with best management practices had average annual increases in SOC per hectare that exceed 2 Mg Cyear −1 (7.3 Mg CO 2 year −1 ) for the 0 to 150 soil depth. For both switchgrass and maize, over 50 % of the increase in SOC was below the 30 cm depth. SOC sequestration by switchgrass was twofold to fourfold greater than that used in models to date which also assumed no SOC sequestration by maize. The results indicate that N fertilizer rates and harvest management regimes can affect the magnitude of SOC sequestration. The use of uniform soil C effects for bioenergy crops from sampling depths of 30 to 40 cm across agro-ecoregions for large scale LCA is questionable.

show abstract

“…Other studies are, however, not so optimistic with respect to the potential of carbon sequestration from reduced tillage. According to Baker et al (2007), the problem is that most studies only examine This again underlines the strength of our proposed system. As long as too much uncertainty is attached to a method, it should remain outside the system, but it sends signals where to improve research.…”

Section: A System For Including Farmers Into An Etsmentioning

confidence: 97%

A project-based system for including farmers in the EU ETS

Brandt

Svendsen

2011

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Title: Should farmers participate in the EU ETS? Permit price, measurement and technology. Journal of Environmental ManagementWe have now revised the paper according to the proposals of the referees. We have considered all the points made by the referees. Below we provide an overview over our response to all the referees' comments. (Marked with yellow). We also shortened the paper according to the advice of the editor. If the paper is still too long, we would be willing to remove the appendix.We want to thank the two referees for valuable comments and suggestings that have improved the paper significantly.Reviewer 1's comments 1. The structure of the abstract is not sound enough. The author/authors should write a comprehensive abstract based on the result and discussion.We have changed the abstract according to the guidelines of the referee 2. Introduction: There are some non-pertinent statements in the Introduction. It should be reduced as the scope of the paper. There are so many facts used in the Introduction without providing the evidences. Please improve it.We have significantly changed the introduction and made it even more focused. The title has also changed according to the revised main question, i.e. how to develop a project-based system for including farmers in the EU ETS. We have eliminated several paragraphs, including the part that farmers are affected by climate change, and the part of the future plan for the EU TPS market, to strengthen focus in the introduction.3. Methods: The way of realizing the objectives of the study is not clear. Please improve it.In the end of the introduction, we have added a large paragraph on the method we employ, namely economic theory. It is now considered how we apply this theory on the research question at hand.4. Results, and Discussion: Please restructure your results with relevant discussions which will let the readers clearly understand your findings.We have included a large paragraph in the end of the introduction that describes our methodology, and the main analysis and findings.5. The conclusion should be more precise.We have changed the conclusion such that it focuses more on the results and implications of our analysis in relation to a project-based system for including farmers in the EU ETS *Detailed Response to ReviewersReviewer #2:(1) Anstract need to be rewrittenHas been done, according to the guidelines of the two referees (2) In page 2, Last para: Authors argue that there is a research gap in the given topic, in fact it is not solely true. The problem here is that Authors mostly cited reports and websites, they have not gone through journal articles. I ask them to go through journal articles. For example, see Maraseni, T.N., We have added the following paragraph: The idea of including farmers in a national emission trading system has been launched in Australia (Maraseni 2009; ABARE 2010) but it has not yet been applied to the EU. This is our contribution to the literature.(3) in page 2, last para: I ask authors to discuss latest debates of United State...

show abstract

Tillage and soil carbon sequestration—What do we really know?

Cited by 1,078 publications

References 35 publications

Organic Farming and Soil Carbon Sequestration: What Do We Really Know About the Benefits?

Organic Farming and Soil Carbon Sequestration: What Do We Really Know About the Benefits?

Soil Carbon Sequestration by Switchgrass and No-Till Maize Grown for Bioenergy

A project-based system for including farmers in the EU ETS

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About