Cargando…

What might it cost to increase soil organic carbon using no-till on U.S. cropland?

BACKGROUND: Existing research provides estimates of the biophysical potential for increasing soil organic carbon (SOC) stock, however additional research is needed to enhance our understanding of the economic potential for agricultural soils to offset or help reduce CO(2) emissions. This study deriv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Sperow, Mark
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7719247/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33278024
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13021-020-00162-3
_version_ 1783619640605278208
author Sperow, Mark
author_facet Sperow, Mark
author_sort Sperow, Mark
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Existing research provides estimates of the biophysical potential for increasing soil organic carbon (SOC) stock, however additional research is needed to enhance our understanding of the economic potential for agricultural soils to offset or help reduce CO(2) emissions. This study derives the marginal cost to increase SOC sequestration by combining SOC sequestration potential estimates developed using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) factors with an existing payment scheme that was designed to increase no-till (NT) adoption on U.S. cropland. The marginal costs of increasing SOC is a function of the amount of SOC that could be increased through NT and the expected cost to landowners of changing management to use NT. RESULTS: The variability in SOC sequestration rates due to different land-use, management histories, climate, and soils, combined with the 48 unique payment rates to adopt NT, yield over 5,000 unique marginal cost values for increasing SOC sequestration. Nearly 95 percent of the biophysical potential SOC sequestration increase on U.S. cropland (2802 Tg CO(2) from 140.1 Tg CO(2) year(−1) for 20 years) could be captured for less than $100 Mg(−1) CO(2.) An estimated 64 to 93 percent of the biophysical potential could be captured for less than the low and high estimated costs to capture CO(2) for geologic storage of $36.36 to $86.06 Mg(−1) CO(2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing tillage intensity through adoption of no-till agriculture offers a cost-effective way to offset a portion of increasing global CO(2) emissions. This research demonstrates that increasing SOC stocks through NT adoption can offset CO(2) emissions at a lower cost than some other options for preventing CO(2) from entering the atmosphere.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7719247
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77192472020-12-07 What might it cost to increase soil organic carbon using no-till on U.S. cropland? Sperow, Mark Carbon Balance Manag Research BACKGROUND: Existing research provides estimates of the biophysical potential for increasing soil organic carbon (SOC) stock, however additional research is needed to enhance our understanding of the economic potential for agricultural soils to offset or help reduce CO(2) emissions. This study derives the marginal cost to increase SOC sequestration by combining SOC sequestration potential estimates developed using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) factors with an existing payment scheme that was designed to increase no-till (NT) adoption on U.S. cropland. The marginal costs of increasing SOC is a function of the amount of SOC that could be increased through NT and the expected cost to landowners of changing management to use NT. RESULTS: The variability in SOC sequestration rates due to different land-use, management histories, climate, and soils, combined with the 48 unique payment rates to adopt NT, yield over 5,000 unique marginal cost values for increasing SOC sequestration. Nearly 95 percent of the biophysical potential SOC sequestration increase on U.S. cropland (2802 Tg CO(2) from 140.1 Tg CO(2) year(−1) for 20 years) could be captured for less than $100 Mg(−1) CO(2.) An estimated 64 to 93 percent of the biophysical potential could be captured for less than the low and high estimated costs to capture CO(2) for geologic storage of $36.36 to $86.06 Mg(−1) CO(2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing tillage intensity through adoption of no-till agriculture offers a cost-effective way to offset a portion of increasing global CO(2) emissions. This research demonstrates that increasing SOC stocks through NT adoption can offset CO(2) emissions at a lower cost than some other options for preventing CO(2) from entering the atmosphere. Springer International Publishing 2020-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7719247/ /pubmed/33278024 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13021-020-00162-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Sperow, Mark
What might it cost to increase soil organic carbon using no-till on U.S. cropland?
title What might it cost to increase soil organic carbon using no-till on U.S. cropland?
title_full What might it cost to increase soil organic carbon using no-till on U.S. cropland?
title_fullStr What might it cost to increase soil organic carbon using no-till on U.S. cropland?
title_full_unstemmed What might it cost to increase soil organic carbon using no-till on U.S. cropland?
title_short What might it cost to increase soil organic carbon using no-till on U.S. cropland?
title_sort what might it cost to increase soil organic carbon using no-till on u.s. cropland?
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7719247/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33278024
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13021-020-00162-3
work_keys_str_mv AT sperowmark whatmightitcosttoincreasesoilorganiccarbonusingnotillonuscropland