A critical review of Lal, P. 2011, Sequestering Carbon in Soils of agroecosystems, Food Policy, vol.

36, S33-S39 By Cameron Woodruff (41773400)

Agriculture occupies a larger portion of global land area (approximately 35%) than any other single human activity (Betts et al., 2007). Since the industrial revolution agricultural soils have been severely depleted of soil organic carbon (SOC) and have greatly contributed to global warming (Lal, 1999) . One solution to reducing global warming is carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration is the capture and storage of carbon from the atmosphere in reservoirs such as soil, underground reservoirs and carbonates in the ocean (Lackner 2003). In agricultural soils this carbon can come in the form of CO2, CH4 or Biochar (a type of charcoal). Lal (2011) investigates how adopting recommended management practices (RMP) will help to sequester carbon, which will increase depleted SOC levels. The article Sequestering Carbon in Soils of agro-ecosystems, published in Food Policy volume 36 focuses on issues in all economy types; in particular food requirements, entitlements, security and aid. Lal (2011) particularly focuses on the carbon sequestration potential of financially poorer farmers located in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. This paper succeeds at informing the audience about the direct and indirect benefits of C sequestration. However it approaches this issue on a global level and provides solutions to improve commitment towards this method, primarily through providing financial benefits to both sellers and buyers. Nevertheless, many economic and institutional factors are not addressed and would help to explain why farmers have not already adopted C sequestration RMP. The RMPs proposed by Lal (2011) These practices include reduced tillage, enhancing crop residue incorporation and manure application, which all increased C sequestration. It is stated that if the RMP are adopted there is potential for sequestration of between 1.2 and 3.1 billion tons C year -1. According to Lal (2011), if these levels of sequestration are maintainable until 2100, atmospheric carbon levels will be the equivalent of those in the pre-industrial era. Upon adopting RMP there are several co-benefits for farms, for instance, improved yield and reduced erosion which both result in increased food security. In addition, increasing food security is also likely to reduce levels of poverty. C sequestration and trading as a mechanism for both environmental protection and poverty alleviation in developing countries has increased considerably in the last decade. There is potential for developing countries to sell their credits to richer post-industrial countries. Any money from this should be spent on improving soil quality; this will allow further sequestration to occur and is covered under the Kyoto Protocol, (IPCC, 2007a). In theory, this is a win-win situation for buyers and sellers; however, in practice C markets are very complex. Problems with C trading include the existence and integration of technical capacity to enhance C storage in production systems; the capacity for resource users to adopt and maintain land resource practices that sequester C; the ability for dealers or brokers to monitor C stocks at a landscape level; the institutional capacity to aggregate C credits; the nancial mechanisms for incentive payments to reach farmers, and transparent and accountable governance structures that can ensure equitable distribution of benets.

Comment [A1]: Excellent introduction. You identified the main argument presented by Lal an gave a clear evaluation of the article.

Comment [A2]: Gases do form a small component of C in the soil i.e. in the soil pores bu the majority of carbon is bound up in compounds such as carbohydrates, lignin and heterogenous, amorphous long-chain molecules.

Comment [A3]: Good summary

Comment [A4]: This is a good paragraph on C trading but make sure you relate back to Lals arti either in the topic sentence (preferable) or in the concluding sentence.

Comment [A5]: This sentence is good but do y have a reference to support it.

Payments to producers can be made either for each hectare of land, on which specific practices are adopted, or per tonne of Ccarbon sequestered. The former option is much easier on which to place monetary value and to monitor. In spite of this, institutional bodies must consider the individuality of each site and accurately calculate C sequestration per hectare; otherwise they will either over or under-value the realised sequestration for sites. This is evident from the considerable variation in models that analyse C sequestration costs; as a result discrepancies often occur in findings between models, because of variation in side benefits, such as erosion control or use of other nutrients which would limit crop growth. Furthermore, this can be seen in the range stated by Lal of 1.2 to 3.1 tonnes C yr -1. If the price of carbon is increased such that it becomes viable for small farmers, it is likely that this will affect common households, unless these credits are purchased by governments. Alternatively, farmers must also consider and be reminded of the long term cobenefits when contemplating adopting RMPs. The financial capability between rich and poor farmers influences the likelihood of acceptance of RMP. As carbon sequestration aims for long term capture and storage there is a need for continued monitoring. If C leaks are discovered there may be problems with recouping payments. One solution to this is annuity payments for the duration of storage, however a large initial investment is required by farmers when adopting RMP and knowing that you will not have any positive return on this investment for many years may discourage farmers. Insurance companies are unlikely to insure poorer farmers for potential leaks. Also poorer farmers are at a further disadvantage in that they may not have sufficient capital to supplement to the transition into RMP. Currently governments lease land to many farmers if this land was sold so it then became freehold land, farmers would be able to use this land as collateral to fund the required initial investment. Whilst this would lose the government a source of income it would provide capital gains and the gains could then be used to further increase movements towards RMP. In the current financial situation, this is unlikely as governments are reducing spending. Cash crops such as millet, sorghum, melons and groundnuts have the potential to sequester carbon though following RMP and would have significant benefits when compared to other crops (Cacho et al., 2005). Continuing on this Tschakert (2004) showed that risks associated with poorer farmers adopting C enhancing management practices are higher than those in middle and higher income farmers. This is due to low income farmers foregoing crops and potentially leaving them unable to purchase extra food during this time.
Comment [A6]: Good point Comment [A7]: good Comment [A8]: good

The transition into RMP lasts 1-5 years, during this time a new equilibrium within the soil must be reached. This transition period is not mentioned in reviewed article and is a time when crops need to be intensively monitored, as outbreaks of weeds or pathogens are common (Hobbs, 2007). Once again poorer farmers are targeted as agricultural ecosystems that are capable of sequestering the largest amount of carbon, due to poorly managed landscapes with low inputs. These poorer farmers rely on steady monoculture crops to provide them with food, with the potential to lose one of these crops and imminent starvation further exasperates the problem of convincing poorer farmers to adopt C sequestration RMP. A solution to this problem which has successfully been implemented in Brazil is for governments to provide compensation should a crop fail while following a series of guidelines.

Comment [A9]: You present some great information in this paragraph but it would be bett to structure your paragraphs directly around an argument presented by lal and then critique this argument based on evidence from the literature. You have all the information but a different structure would improve clarity and strengthen yo arguments.

One critical point that Lal (2011) fails to mention is that eventually the soil will reach equilibrium where it will no longer be able to sequester carbon. One model predicts that, the duration of carbon sequestration is predicted to be 1998 years before the SOC reaches a saturation point (Izaurralde, 2006). This is crucial in determining the long term profitability for farmers, notably when there is a need for equipment to be purchased and up to 5 years for crops to reach a new equilibrium state. Another model by Changsheng ? date that should be considered when contemplating adopting RMP has shown that although carbon is sequestered, it may result in increased N2O emissions. Over a 20 year period Changshengs model showed that when N2O emission with a 100-year global warming potential multipliers, offset 75310% of carbon sequestered depending on various scenarios. Thus, to properly determine the viability of C sequestration it is required that each site be individually assessed. However, this will increase the initial costs of converting to RMPs. Finally, Lal (2011) also mentions the use of Biochar in agro-ecosystems, which has a potential to sequester 1.2 billion tons C year-1. This is a product currently being intensively researched and has great potential. Biochar application is a method of quickly storing carbon in agricultural ecosystems. The properties of Biochar also improve soil fertility; providing habitat for microbes (Pietikainen et al., 2000), buffering pH and sorbing such compounds as pesticides (Yu et al., 2006). This ability to absorb pesticides may be crucial for farmers that have to go through a transition period and have to use pesticide. In addition, there has been varying papers on if Biochar addition causes nitrogen mineralisation (Wardle et al. 2008, Jones et al., 2010). Further research on this topic is leading to the conclusion that agricultural soils lack significant quantities of phenolic compounds that suppress N mineralisation and are sometimes removed by the presence of Biochar (Deluca et al., 2006). It is likely that producers will likely be willing to adopt such practices as reduced tillage, use crop rotations instead of monocultures, increase cropping frequency at the expense of bare fallow in arid and semi-arid environments. These are all relatively low in cost depending on the labour invested and are likely to result in a reduction in C emissions and increase C sequestration. Ultimately, it will be the synergy of land management practices, measuring and monitoring methods, scaling up procedures, and institutional mechanisms that will generate and deliver a marketable product. There are many creases that need to be ironed out before Lals (2011) vision for carbon sequestration in agro-ecosystems can become a reality.

Comment [A10]: Great paragraph. Good to st with lals point and then critique it.

Comment [A11]: Good paragraph

References Betts, R.A., Falloon, P., Goldewijk, K.K., Ramankutty, N., 2007. Biogeophysical effects of land use on climate: Model simulations of radiative forcing and large-scale temperature change. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 142, 216233 Cacho, O, Marshall, G., Milne, M. 2003. Smallholder agroforestry projects: potential for carbon sequestration and poverty alleviation, ESA Working PaperNo. 03-06, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. DeLuca, T.H., MacKenzie, M.D., Gundale, M.J., Holben, W.E., 2006. Wildreproduced charcoal directly inuences nitrogen cycling in Ponderosa pine forests. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70, 448e453. Hobbs, P.R. (2007), Conservation agriculture: what is it and why is it important for future sustainable food production?, Journal of Agricultural Science 145: 127 137. IPCC, 2007a. Climate Change 2007: The Physcial Science Basis. Working Group 1. Cambridge Univ. press, Cambridge, UK Izaurralde R C, Williams J R, Mcgill W B, et al. Simulating soil C dynamics with EPIC: model description and testing against long-term data. Ecol Model, 2006, 192: 362384 Jones, D.L., Edwards-Jones, G., Murphy, D.V., 2010. Biochar mediated alterations in herbicide breakdown and leaching in soil. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 43, 804e813. Lackner, K. S., 2003, A guide to CO2 sequestration, Science 300, 16771678. Lal, R. 1999. Soil management and restoration for C sequestration to mitigate the Greenhouse effect. Progress in environmental Science 1, 307-326. Pietikainen, J., Kiikkila, O., Fritze, H., 2000. Charcoal as a habitat for microbes and its effect on the microbial community of the underlying humus. Oikos 89, 231e242. Tschakert, P., 2004. The costs of soil carbon sequestration: an economic analysis for small-scale farming systems in Senegal. Agricultural Systems 81, 227253. Wardle, D.A., Nilsson, M.C., Zackrisson, O., 2008. Fire-derived charcoal causes loss of forest humus. Science 320, 629. Yu, X.Y., Ying, G.G., Kookana, R.S., 2006. Sorption and desorpton behaviours of diuron in soils amended with charcoal. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 54, 8545e8550.