Potential and Field Measurements of Soil Carbon Sequestration: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Robert White

Soil carbon sequestration (SCS) is a key priority in the Australian government’s Long-Term Emissions Reduction Plan. Under the government’s Emission Reduction Fund (ERF), farmers are encouraged to change to a management practice that will increase their soil carbon (C) stock and earn Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs).

  • soil carbon
  • sequestration
  • carbon credits

1. Introduction

Over the past decade, agriculture has gone from sinner to saviour in the context of global warming. For example, the World Bank [1] reported in 2012 that “Some 30 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are attributable to agriculture and deforestation driven by the expansion of crop and livestock production for food, fiber and fuel.” However, an awareness of the potential of, and advocacy for, soils to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere has been gathering momentum, propelled by the proposal at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for the soil carbon content (SOC) of soils globally to be increased by 0.4% per annum (www.4p1000.org, accessed on 20 March 2022). The same World Bank report hoped that, in the global debate about climate change mitigation, “the ‘triple win’ of soil carbon sequestration for increased productivity, improved climate resilience, and enhanced mitigation” would become an integral part of the dialogue.
The World Bank’s call has been taken up by various international consortia such as The Adaptation of African Agriculture [2], Living Soils of the Americas [3] and Advancing Climate Action in the Americas [4]. However, actual mechanisms by which land managers can be rewarded for genuine GHG abatement through soil carbon sequestration (SCS) have been primarily the focus of government or private-sector action in North America and Australia. In these regions, schemes have been developed (see Table 1) whereby land managers are encouraged to implement practices to draw down CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in soil organic matter (SOM), described as a negative emissions strategy [5]. For a defined area of land, SCS represents the balance between the transfer of atmospheric CO2 to soil through photosynthetic products, and carbon (C) losses primarily through soil respiration [6]. When the balance favours C accretion (i.e., is positive), net SCS occurs, which is measured by sampling the soil to a specific depth, normally 0.3 m as recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) [7], and measuring the soil C concentration and bulk density of the fine soil mass (particles < 2 mm equivalent diameter, which excludes gravel). Bulk density is necessary because this property can change with time under different soil managements. Because of this, estimates of the soil C stock over time are best based on an equivalent soil mass [7], but are usually scaled up to a C content per unit area (e.g., tonnes (t) per hectare (ha)).
Plant product removal, soil erosion and leaching of dissolved organic C may also deplete the soil C stock, and this will be reflected in its measured value. However, the success of SCS as a negative emissions strategy requires not only that net SCS be positive, but also that net SCS exceeds any increases in emissions of other GHGs that might occur during the operation of the project [8]; that is, net C abatement occurs.
Although the original COP21 proposal referred to an 0.4% increase in soil C in world soils, it is clear from subsequent references [9] that the proposal was focused on agricultural soils and their management. As indicated above, implementation schemes (called protocols) for SCS are now available in several countries [6][10]. One of the longest running schemes is the Emission Reduction Fund (ERF) of the Australian government (www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF, accessed on 20 March 2022), under which soil C projects are strongly promoted. If a project achieves genuine net abatement, the landholder is rewarded with Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs). One ACCU is the equivalent of one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) of net C abatement.
Table 1. Examples of protocols for soil carbon sequestration recognized in the USA.
Protocol Additionality
Requirement		 Permanence Period Risk-of-Reversal Leakage Considers Other GHGs
Climate Action Reserve Enrichment v.1.0 Yes, performance and legal requirement tests Yes, 100 years or tonne-year accounting for a shorter period Percentage of credits to a buffer pool Yes, for displacement of livestock and lower crop yields Yes, uses modelling or emission factors
Nori Croplands Methodology v.1.1 Yes, project must show increase in SCS over baseline 10 years Yes, restricted tokens are used for any deliberate reversals Verify if SOC gains cause losses outside of project boundary No
Gold Standard Soil Organic C Methodology v 1.0 Yes, performance and legal requirement tests Permanence within crediting period (5–20 years) Yes, a percentage of credits go to a buffer pool Yes, accounts for shifting crop production Yes, modelling or emission factors if emissions > 5% of baseline
BCarbon Credits issued for C added after initial testing 10 years, renewable after credits issued 10% of credits to a buffer pool Potential leakage assessed by life cycle analysis No
Regen Network Grassland Protocol Yes, eligible practices must be new and additional to business-as-usual 25 years Yes, a percentage of credits to a buffer pool Potential sources of leakage tracked over time Yes, net emissions accounted for using accepted factors
Carbon Credits—Measurement of SCS in Agricultural Systems Methodology Yes, requires at least one new eligible management activity 25 or 100 years, deduction of 20% of credits for 25-year period Yes, risk-of-reversal buffer of 5% of credits Yes, accounts for organic materials derived from outside the project area or new irrigation water Yes, emission factors used if project emissions are greater than those of the baseline
Adapted from Appendix A of [10].

2. The Potential for Increasing Soil C Sequestration

Projections for the Australian Landscape

For an ERF soil C project, operating an approved management practice, the critical issue is by how much can the rate of C inputs be increased relative to the rate of C losses. The main factors governing these input and output processes have been discussed by many authors [6][7][9][11][12][13].
In the lead-up to COP26, the Australian government’s Long-Term Emissions Reduction Plan [14] (p. 55) identified soil C as one of the key low-emission strategies for attaining net zero by 2050. Soil carbon sequestration was envisaged as a mechanism by which emissions from industry that were hard to reduce could be offset by SCS that provided genuine net abatement. Soil C projects were estimated to have the potential to provide at least 17 Mt CO₂-e of accredited offsets annually by 2050, in addition to CO₂ drawn from the atmosphere without accreditation.
As modelling for the Plan acknowledges [15] (p. 79), there is a wide range of estimates for SCS in Australian farmland, depending on assumptions about the effects of biophysical and environmental factors over time, uptake rates by farmers and the costs relative to the benefits (see Costs and Benefits below). For example, with advanced technology (unspecified) and an abatement incentive of AUD80 per t CO2-e, SCS in Australian farmland was projected to account for 26 Mt CO₂-e annually to 2050. Previously, the first Low Emissions Technology Statement (LETS) [16] (p. 23) referred to a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) review [17] that noted the potential for 35–90 Mt CO2-e per annum to be drawn down from the atmosphere through improved management of one quarter of Australia’s crop and grazing lands.
Estimates of SCS made by some commercial aggregators are considerably higher. For example, Agriprove’s analysis, quoted in the Plan (agriprove.io), indicated that the potential across 36.58 Mha of cropping land and 28.95 Mha of grazing land (not including rangelands receiving <300 mm rainfall) could be at least 103 Mt CO2-e annually [14] (p. 56). In an Australian Broadcasting Corporation Science Show of 19 September 2020 [18], Matthew Warnken of Agriprove stated that some 30 Mha of pasture land would be suitable for “proving” the levels of SOC, delivering approximately 130 Mt of abatement each year.

3. Field Measurements of Soil Carbon Sequestration

3.1. Technical and Financial Considerations

In the field, soil C content varies both spatially and temporally, which creates difficulties for measurement. Once an area of land is delineated (the CEA), soil cores must be sampled to at least 0.3 m depth and the samples analyzed for the organic C concentration. At the same time, soil bulk densities must be measured so that the mean C content per unit volume of equivalent soil mass (the C stock) can be calculated (gravel must be excluded). This is the baseline sampling round. A second round of soil sampling for analysis must be undertaken within five years so that the change in soil C stock can be estimated.
Smith et al. [7] suggested that, under some land managements, sampling to more than 0.3 m may be necessary to accurately measure C change in the soil profile. For example, under no-till farming, a decrease in soil C at depth may counterbalance an increase in soil C within the top 0.3 m [19]. Although the Food and Agriculture Organization has recommended sampling to 1 m [7], this requires specialized equipment and makes the measurement of soil C change prohibitively expensive [10].
The effect of spatial variability on the precision of each soil C mean can be reduced by increasing the number of samples taken in the CEA. For example, for a 50-ha field, Oldfield et al. [10] calculated the number of independent samples needed to estimate with 95% certainty a change of 0.05% in mean soil C concentration over 5 years (corresponding to a sequestration rate of 0.3 t C/ha/year to 0.3 m depth in a soil of bulk density 1 Mg/m3). For field variabilities ranging from 0.3 to 0.7 standard deviations, the number of samples required ranged from 12 to 62 per ha. The effect of spatial variability, which may be exacerbated by seasonal changes from year to year, can be moderated to an extent by ensuring that samples are taken at the same time each year. However, the sampling intensity required for a 95% level of certainty remains high, so the ERF sets the confidence level for accepting a significant difference between means at 60% [20].
More intensive soil sampling incurs greater costs. For example, for a 68ha cropping field in central-west New South Wales (NSW), Singh et al. [21] reported an all-in cost of AUD37/ha (in 2011 dollars) to measure the soil C stock (to 0.3 m) with a standard error ≤2 t/ha. Under its Technology Investment Roadmap [16] (p. 24), the Australian government proposed the ambitious “stretch goal” of reducing the cost of measurement to AUD3/ha. Hence, much effort has been devoted to developing techniques that are cheaper, with an acceptable degree of precision, such as near- and mid-infrared spectroscopy [7][22]. However, such methods require calibration against soil C concentrations measured by dry-combustion analysis. Other methods, the so-called hybrid methods, seek to reduce the cost of monitoring by coupling direct measurements of soil C with a model of soil C dynamics, as advocated by Powlson and Neal [23].
A new ERF protocol, released at the end of 2021 [20], involves using less frequent soil sampling and measurements that are used to check the output of a C model. Other approaches involve the use of remote sensing, in particular, spectral bands [7][24]. Such a method may have some application for bare soil, but not vegetated land, other than for estimating above-ground plant biomass, which may provide an input variable to a soil C model. Prior remote sensing may also be helpful in determining the most effective selection of sites for soil sampling. Oldfield et al. [10] discuss some of the limitations of these “advanced” technologies.

3.2. Examples of Field Measurements of SCS in Australia

Converting cropland to permanent pasture is one of the most promising, eligible changes in land management under the ERF. For example, Badgery et al. [25] reported on trials on farms in the Cowra Trough, central-west NSW (rainfall 673 mm). Farms were selected on the basis of the soil C increase predicted from a Soil Carbon Calculation Tool [26] when the farmers changed their management in accordance with ERF requirements. Soil C stock was measured in 2012 according to the ERF protocol (baseline sampling) and again in 2017. Table 2 gives the results for five farms where the management change was from cropping to pasture without organic amendments.
Table 2. Changes in soil carbon stock after a change from cropping to pasture in a 5-year on-farm trial in the Cowra Trough, NSW [25].
Farm Identifier (All Farms > 200 ha) Initial Soil C Stock (t C/ha to 30 cm) Predicted Change in Soil C Stock (t C/ha/year) Measured Change in Soil C Stock (t C/ha/year) 1
LA0690 27.1 0.41 1.01 ± 0.16
LA0700 28.2 0.3 0.58 ± 0.43
LA0725 31.9 0.2 0.78 ± 0.29
LA0934 20.9 0.5 1.13 ± 0.16
LA0734 28.6 0.3 1.33 ± 0.18
Means 27.3 0.34 0.97
1 Mean and standard error derived from a minimum of 10 composite samples according to a stratified random design.
The following points should be noted.
  • The initial soil C stocks were low, which increased the likelihood of a faster initial rate of C accumulation when management was changed [27]. Similarly, Doran-Browne et al. [28] reported a significant potential to sequester C in a degraded soil when management was changed.
  • There was considerable variation in the measured means for soil C change, reflecting the spatial variability of soil C in the field.
  • The mean increase in soil C stock over the first five years of 0.97 t C/ha/year is at the upper end of expectations. A previous survey of farm paddocks converted from cropping to pasture in the region found an average increase of 0.78 t C/ha/year over five years [29].
  • The rate of soil C increase is likely to slow with time as the soil approaches a new steady-state equilibrium [13]. For example, in a similar region of NSW, but for longer term trials of 13 and 25 years, Chan et al. [30] reported increases of 0.40 and 0.26 t C/ha/year, respectively.
For the mixed farming belt of central-west NSW, these researchers found that improved soil nutrient inputs and grazing management could lead to increases of 0.5–0.7 t C/ha/year. They added the proviso that the initial soil C levels should be well below the steady-state contents that would be expected after such improved management. Similarly, for crop-pasture rotations with stubble retention under annual rainfall of 330–700 mm in Victoria, Robertson and Nash [31] projected increases in the soil C store of 0.3–0.9 t C/ha/year over 25 years; but they cautioned that such increases could take 10–25 years to be measured with certainty.
The above measurements and estimates of the rate of SCS under Australian conditions are consistent with the range of 0.3–0.6 t C/ha/year reported by Sanderman et al. [17]. However, the only soil C project that has been awarded ACCUs by the CER has recorded much higher values. This project was based on a renovated pasture on a 100-ha field of a farm in West Gippsland, Victoria, which receives an annual rainfall of 1000 mm (www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF, accessed on 24 March 2022). Within the first five years of the project, 1904 ACCUs were awarded, which, allowing for a combined 25% discount for its 25-year permanence period and risk-of-reversal buffer, amounted to a net 25.39 t CO2-e/ha sequestered over two years, or an average rate of 3.46 t C/ha/year (the change in other GHG emissions was negligible). 

3.3. Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV)

Currently, the ERF requirements for monitoring soil C are based on measurements of soil C stock to at least 0.3 m depth. A qualified technician must carry out the sampling and the C analyses done in an approved laboratory. A previous version of the protocol allowed estimates of soil C change to be obtained from FullCAM modelling [32]. However, the model estimates were conservative and were not at a high spatial resolution, so few projects were registered under this protocol. In the recently released 2021 protocol, a hybrid modelling-soil sampling method is available. This still requires rigorous baseline sampling, but the frequency of further sampling and soil analysis can be reduced to once every 10 years.
All the registered soil C projects have chosen a 25-year permanence period during which a report must be submitted to the CER at least once every five years. The project results need to be independently audited three times during the crediting period of 25 years.
Smith et al. [7] acknowledged that there is much variation in the capacity of different C credit protocols globally to apply rigorous MRV. However, because of their strict MRV, ACCUs so far are recognized to be of high integrity [10].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/soilsystems6020046

References

  1. World Bank. Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils; Report Number: 67395-GLB; Agriculture and Rural Development; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
  2. Adapting African Agriculture to Climate Change: 2014. Available online: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-13000-2 (accessed on 12 October 2020).
  3. Living Soils in the Americas. Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture. Available online: https://iica.int/en/press/events/living-soils-americas (accessed on 12 October 2020).
  4. United States Department of State. Advancing Climate Action in the Americas; United States Department of State: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
  5. Paustian, K.; Larson, E.; Kent, J.; Marx, E.; Swan, A. Soil C sequestration as a biological negative emissions strategy. Front. Clim. 2019, 1, 8.
  6. Henderson, B.; Lankoski, J.; Flynn, E.; Sykes, A.; Payen, F.; MacLeod, M. Soil Carbon Sequestration by Agriculture: Policy Options; OECD Food Agriculture and Fisheries Paper no. 174; OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate: Paris, France, 2022.
  7. Smith, P.; Soussana, J.-F.; Angers, D.; Schipper, L.; Chenu, C.; Rasse, D.P.; Batjes, N.H.; van Egmond, F.; McNeill, S.; Kuhnert, M.; et al. How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realize the potential of soil carbon sequestration for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal. Glob. Change Biol. 2020, 26, 219–241.
  8. White, R.E.; Davidson, B.; Eckard, R. An Everyman’s Guide for a Landholder to Participate in Soil Carbon Farming in Australia; Occasional Paper no. 21.01; Australian Farm Institute: Sydney, Australia, 2021.
  9. Soussana, J.-F.; Lutfalla, S.; Ehrhardt, F.; Rosenstock, T.; Lamanna, C.; Havlík, P.; Richards, M.; Wollenberg, E.; Chotte, J.-L.; Torquebiau, E.; et al. Matching policy and science: Rationale for the ‘4 per 1000—Soils for food security and climate’ initiative. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 188, 3–15.
  10. Oldfield, E.E.; Eagle, A.J.; Rubin, R.L.; Rudek, J.; Sanderman, J.; Gordon, D.R. Agricultural Soil Carbon Credits: Making Sense of Protocols for Carbon Sequestration and Net Greenhouse Gas Removals; Environmental Defense Fund: New York, NY, USA, 2022.
  11. Powlson, D.S.; Bhogal, A.; Chambers, B.J.; Coleman, K.; Macdonald, A.J.; Goulding, K.W.T.; Whitmore, A.P. The potential to increase soil carbon stocks through reduced tillage or organic material additions in England and Wales: A case study. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 146, 23–33.
  12. Powlson, D.S.; Whitmore, A.P.; Goulding, K.W.T. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: A critical re-examination to identify the true and the false. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2011, 62, 42–55.
  13. Johnston, A.E.; Poulton, P.R.; Coleman, K. Soil Organic Matter: Its Importance in Sustainable Agriculture and Carbon Dioxide Fluxes. In Advances in Agronomy; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Academic Press: Burlington, VT, USA, 2009; Volume 101, pp. 1–57.
  14. Commonwealth of Australia. Australia’s Whole-of-Economy Long-Term Emissions Reduction Plan; Australian Government Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources: Canberra, Australia, 2021.
  15. Commonwealth of Australia. Australia’s Long-Term Emissions Reduction Plan: Modelling and Analysis; Australian Government Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources: Canberra, Australia, 2021.
  16. Technology Investment Roadmap. First Low Emissions Technology Statement—2020; Australian Government Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources: Canberra, Australia, 2020.
  17. Sanderman, J.; Farquharson, R.; Baldock, J. Soil Carbon Sequestration Potential: A Review for Australian Agriculture; Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Australian Government: Canberra, Australia, 2010.
  18. Williams, R. The Science Show, Australian Broadcasting Commission. 2020. Available online: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/how-to-wipeout-a-third-of-our-CO2-emissions-the-answer:-%E2%80%9Clies/12678654 (accessed on 12 October 2020).
  19. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Rattan Lal, R. No-tillage and soil-profile carbon sequestration: An on-farm assessment. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2008, 72, 693–701.
  20. Carbon Credits. Carbon Farming Initiative—Estimation of Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Using Measurement and Models Methodology Determination 2021; Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2021.
  21. Singh, K.; Murphy, B.W.; Marchant, B.P. Towards cost-effective estimation of soil carbon stocks at the field scale. Soil Res. 2012, 50, 672–684.
  22. Viscarra Rossel, R.A.; Brus, D.; Lobsey, C.; Shi, Z.; McLachlan, G. Baseline 745 estimates of soil organic carbon by proximal sensing: Comparing design-based, 746 model-assisted and model-based inference. Geoderma 2016, 265, 152–163.
  23. Powlson, D.S.; Neal, A.L. Influence of organic matter on soil properties: By how much can organic carbon be increased in arable soils and can changes be measured? Proc. Int. Fertil. Soc. 2021, 862, 2–29.
  24. Kunkel, V.R.; Wells, T.; Hancock, G.R. Modelling soil organic carbon using vegetation indices across large catchments in eastern Australia. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 817, 152690.
  25. Badgery, W.; Murphy, B.; Cowie, A.; Orgill, S.; Rawson, A.; Simmons, A.; Crean, J. Soil carbon market-based instrument pilot—the sequestration of soil organic carbon for the purpose of obtaining carbon credits. Soil Res. 2020, 59, 12–23.
  26. Murphy, B.; Rawson, A.; Badgery, W.; Crean, J.; Pearson, L.; Simmons, A.; Andersson, K.; Warden, E.; Lorimer-Ward, K. Soil carbon science to support a scheme for the payment of changes in soil carbon—Lessons and experiences from the CAMBI pilot scheme. In Proceedings of the 5th Joint Australia and New Zealand Soil Science Conference, Hobart, Tasmania, 2–7 December 2012; Burkitt, L., Sparrow, L., Eds.; Australian Society of Soil Science Incorporated: Hobart, Tasmania, 2012; pp. 255–258.
  27. Meyer, R.; Cullen, B.R.; Johnson, I.R.; Eckard, R.J. Process modelling to assess the sequestration and productivity benefits of soil carbon for pasture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 213, 272–280.
  28. Doran-Browne, N.A.; Ive, J.; Graham, P.; Eckard, R.J. Carbon-neutral wool farming in south-eastern Australia. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016, 56, 417–422.
  29. Badgery, W.B.; Simmons, A.T.; Murphy, B.W.; Rawson, A.; Andersson, K.O.; Lonergan, V.E. The influence of land use and management on soil carbon levels for crop-pasture systems in Central New South Wales, Australia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 196, 147–157.
  30. Chan, K.Y.; Conyers, M.K.; Li, G.D.; Helyar, K.R.; Poile, G.; Oates, A.; Barchia, I.M. Soil carbon dynamics under different cropping and pasture management in temperate Australia: Results of three long-term experiments. Soil Res. 2011, 49, 320–328.
  31. Robertson, F.; Nash, D. Limited potential for soil carbon accumulation using current cropping practices in Victoria, Australia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 165, 130–140.
  32. Richards, G.P.; Evans, D.M.W. Development of a carbon accounting model (FullCAM Vers. 1.0) for the Australian continent. Aust. For. 2004, 67, 277–283.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback