Zero Hunger

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Pinar Gökcin Özuyar, Tony Wall

Carbon Sequestration: Pathway to Increased Agricultural Productivity and Zero Hunger for Developing Countries

  • Richard N. OnwongaEmail author
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69626-3_60-2

Definition

Carbon sequestration (CS) is the process by which atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is removed from the atmosphere and stored in the ocean, on land surface, or in geological formations and is reported as a rate of carbon (C) storage in units of mass per time such as teragrams (Tg = 1 × 1012) C/year (Sundquist et al. 2008).

Synonyms

Introduction

The world’s population is projected to hit 9 billion by 2050 (Godfray et al. 2010), and an increase of over 50% in agricultural food supply will be required to meet the growing food demand (Mueller et al. 2012; FAO 2013; Paul et al. 2009; FAO 2009). Recent statistics further indicate growth in per capita world food production of 17%, with per capita food consumption averaging at 2780 kcal day−1 (UNEP-UNCTAD 2008). Whereas modern agricultural practices would spectacularly increase productivity, the majority of the chronically hungry are subsistence small farmers in developing countries and are too poor to purchase inputs and often marginalized from markets (Lal 2016). In the recent decades, the global distribution of hunger has shifted significantly as a result of varied rates of achievement in hunger reduction across regions. However, there are still more than one billion food-insecure people in the world with an additional two billion people prone to hidden hunger or malnutrition caused by the deficiency of micronutrients and protein (FAO 2016). Majority of countries in southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), respectively, account for the first (35.4%) and second (27.7%) largest share of global undernourishment (FAO 2016).

Despite the many efforts directed toward reducing hunger, food demand is anticipated to both grow and shift in the coming decades due to population and economic growth and increase in people’s purchasing power. Similarly, growing urbanization and climate change will encourage people to adopt new diets besides exerting pressure on both land and water resources (Pretty et al. 2006). Challenges such as growing competitions for natural resources, natural disasters, poverty, illiteracy, and diseases would likewise pose threats to food security, thus intensifying the hunger crisis (Wu et al. 2014). Climate change will particularly have immense effects on agriculture and consequently human hunger (Trevors 2009). The transformation and democratization of the world’s food system is the best way to adapt to climate change while simultaneously eradicating hunger and poverty, as the root causes of inequality and environmental degradation are confronted head-on (Altieri et al. 2015).

The nexus of climate change-soil degradation-food security is intricately linked with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations, especially SDG #1 (no poverty), #2 (zero hunger), #3 (good health and wellbeing), #6 (clean water), #13 (climate action), and #15 (life on land) (UN 2015). Consequently, the emphasis on achieving food security, eliminating hunger, and removing poverty has been among important foci of the Agenda 21 (UN 1992), Millennium Development Goals (UN 2000), and the Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2015). The SDG #2 integrates and links food security, nutrition, and a sustainable and climate-resilient agriculture. It has further been shown that advancing sustainable development goals through management of soil health would play a significant role in ending hunger through enhancing the quantity and quality of food (Lal 2016).

Improving and sustaining soil quality and health is an integral step toward achieving the SDGs on zero hunger (Pagliai et al. 2002; Rojas et al. 2016). Through plant growth, soil health is also connected with the health of animals, humans, and ecosystems within its domain. Hayne (1940) stated that “if we feed the soil, it will feed us” and that “only productive soil can support a prosperous people.” Thus, maintaining soil health is essential to human health, ecosystem functions, and nature conservancy. According to CNES (1999), to eradicate hunger, global food production must be increased by 2% year−1, and to eradicate malnutrition and hunger, soil quality must be restored rapidly (by 2050 or sooner) especially in developing countries.

The management of soil health is however intertwined with the management of soil organic carbon (SOC) pool (Lal 2016). Through supply of macro- and micronutrients, soil health, mediated by SOC dynamics, is a strong determinant of global food and nutritional security. Improvements in soil health, along with increase in availability of water and nutrients, increase soil’s resilience against extreme climate events and impart disease-suppressive attributes (Ogle et al. 2005). Therefore, SOC sequestration and re-carbonization of the agroecosystems are important to advancing the SDGs. In retrospect, sustainable management of world soils (Lal 2004a, b) and biotic resources (Lal 2010c) is critical to mitigating climate change through implementation of initiatives such as the “4 per thousand” (UNFCCC 2015; Chambers et al. 2016), which highlights the importance of sequestering C in soil at the aspirational rate of 0.4%/year to 40 cm depth (Lal 2016). It is an important mechanism of advancing SDG #2. This natural process of CS in soils is beneficial through increasing crop yields, inputs use efficiency, soil biodiversity, and mitigation of climate change through reduction in net CO2 levels (Lal 2010a, b). In this review, it is hypothesized that enhancing the levels of organic matter in soil would lead to better plant nutrition and increased water retention capacity with resultant higher yields and greater agricultural resilience, and hence a vital step on the trajectory to attaining zero hunger in developing Countries.

The objective of this review is twofold: (i) to highlight the contribution of soil CS to SDG #2 – zero hunger – and (ii) synthesize and highlight management options critical in enhancing soil CS for increased agricultural productivity and advancing zero hunger. The paper review has three interrelated sections: management of SOC for increased crop yields; management practices and options for soil CS; and integration of technologies for enhanced CS and agricultural sustainability, the sum total of which climaxes the role of CS in reducing hunger through sustainable agricultural production methods.

Management of SOC for Increased Crop Yields

Crop yields in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have stagnated at about 1 t ha−1 for cereals (e.g., sorghum, millet, maize), 3–5 t ha−1 for roots and tubers (e.g., cassava, sweet potato, and yam), and 100 to 200 kg ha−1 for legumes (e.g., cowpeas), because of soil degradation caused by erosion, nutrient mining, and depletion of the SOC pool (Roy 2010). This creates a gap, for instance, in sub-Saharan Africa, of about 16 million Mg in 2001, and that is projected to increase to 52 million Mg by 2015 (Roy 2010). Improving and sustaining soil health, which is entwined with the management of SOC pool, is key to increased agricultural productivity.

SOC plays an important and critical role in increasing crop productivity, improving soil fertility (Tiessen et al. 1994), and reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) enrichment (Lal 2004b). This is in addition to providing other ecosystem services, such as maintenance of consistent yields through improvements in water and nutrient holding capacity, soil structure, and biotic activity (Fan et al. 2013).

Adoption of proven soil management technologies, and especially those that enhance SOC content, has been demonstrated to potentially quadruple production of food crop staples in SSA and also improve their nutritional quality. The SOC concentration of between 2% and 3% in the root zone measured across a wide spectrum of soils has been found to be significant in improving agronomic yields of crops and pastures (Loveland and Webb 2003). Globally, adoption of recommended management practices, and of which augment SOC, is projected to enhance average cereal grain yields from 3.4 t ha−1 in 2008 to 4.2 t ha−1 in 2020 (Ingram et al. 2008). Johnson (1986) asserted that an increase in SOC stock could similarly increase crop yield even in high-input commercial agriculture systems (Bauer and Black 1994) and more so in depleted soils. Available literature information collated and synthesized by Lal (2010a) shows a strong relation between crop yields (grain and straw) and other food staples (root crops) and the amount of SOC in the root zone for diverse soils in several countries in Asia and Africa. An increase of 1 ton of SOC, for instance, was found to enhance wheat grain yield by 27 kgha−1 in North Dakota, United States (Bauer and Black 1994), and by 40 kgha−1 in the Semi-arid Pampas of Argentina (Diaz-Zorita et al. 2005), 6 kgha−1 of wheat and 3 kgha−1 of maize in alluvial soils of northern India (Kanchikerimath and Singh 2001), 17 kgha−1 of maize in Thailand (Petchawee and Chaitep 1995), and 10 kgha−1 of maize and 1 kgha−1 of cowpea in western Nigeria (Lal 1981), and for a podzolic loamy sand in Russia, increase in SOC concentration by 1% increased grain yield of wheat by 0.33 Mg ha−1 and that of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) by 0.29 Mg ha−1. Similarly, Pan et al. (2009), Overstreet and DeJong-Hughes (2009), and Zhang et al. (2016) reported that a 1% increase in SOC content of the topsoil (0–20 cm) could increase cereal yield by 430 kg ha−1 and reduce yield variability by 3.5%. Becker and Johnson (2001) conducting field studies in West Africa similarly reported increased grain yield of upland rice by 0.31 Mg ha−1 with a 1%increase in SOC concentration in the root zone.

Further, in a survey across 57 countries covering 37 ha (3% of the cultivated area in developing countries), Pretty et al. (2006) reported an average crop yield increase of 79% (geometric mean 64%) with increase in SOC. All crops showed water use efficiency gains, with the highest improvement in rain-fed crops. These findings have further been confirmed through use of several models to project crop yields and soil CS (Jenkinson and Rayner 1977; Coleman and Jenkinson 1995; Parton et al. 1994; Izaurralde et al. 2001, 2002; Gijsman et al. 2002; FAO 2004b), and in all cases significant increase in crop yields with increase in SOC was reported.

Management Practices and Options for Soil Carbon Sequestration

There are a plethora of management practices and possibilities for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it in the soil (Kane 2015) and thereby creating a positive carbon budget. The overall strategy is to increase SOC density, distribution of SOC in the subsoil, aggregation, and formation of secondary carbonates. The SOC density can be improved by increasing C input into the soil and decreasing losses by erosion, mineralization, and leaching. Restoration of degraded soils and ecosystems, erosion control, and conversion of agriculturally marginal soils to a restorative land use are important options for SOC sequestration (Kaur et al. 2000, 2002a, b).

Adoption of management practices such as conservation agriculture with mulch farming and cover cropping, complex rotations including agroforestry, integrated nutrient management in conjunction with use of crop varieties that produce large root biomass and fix biological nitrogen and recycling of plant nutrients fortified by rhizobial and mycorrhizal inoculations, fertigation with drip subirrigation, and creating disease-suppressive soils through improvement of rhizospheric processes are some of the management practices and options (Fig. 1) that create a positive soil carbon budget, reduce emissions from farming operations like tillage, and minimize risks of soil erosion and nutrient and SOC depletion (Lal 2000; Batjes 2001; Lal 2002).
Fig. 1

Management options and practices for soil carbon sequestration. (Source Lal 2016)

Similarly, soil C can be enhanced through expanding the amount of land under permanent grassland or forest vegetation, protection of trees on farmland, mixing trees with crops, and emphasizing mixed stands of trees, which have been shown to be more efficient for CS than monoculture stands (Montagnini and Nair 2004). Use of crop residues and manure to enhance soil biodiversity, especially earthworm activity, is an important strategy for increasing SOC concentration and soil quality (Bhadauria and Ramakrishnan 1996). The other more specialized and highly recommended management practices for enhancing CS include but not limited to organic farming, conservation agriculture, agroforestry, biochar, and climate-smart agriculture.

Organic Farming

Because of its methodological approach that incorporates the use of organic fertilizers and amendments, e.g., growing leguminous crops or adding compost, animal dung, or green manures (Pretty et al. 2008), organic farming directly contributes to improvement of the natural capital through increased SOC concentration in the soil. Consequently, many improvements to the natural environment, including reduced soil erosion combined with improved organic matter in soils, lead to better CS (Ostrom 1998; Pretty et al. 2003).

Several field studies have proved the positive effect of organic farming practice on soil carbon pools (Küstermann et al. 2008; Pimentel et al. 2005). In Switzerland, a long-term trial biodynamic system showed a stable carbon content, while a carbon loss of 15% in 21 years was measured for the compared conventional system. In the USA, a field trial showed a fivefold higher carbon sequestration in the organic system (i.e., 1218 kg of C ha yr.−1) in comparison with conventional management (Hepperly et al. 2006). The potential of CS rate by organic farming for European agricultural soils has been estimated at 0–0.5tC ha yr.−1.

With enhanced SOC concentration, significant improvements in the water table - as a result of increased water holding capacity of the soil - and soil properties are achieved and manifest in healthier soils. This soils are; able to sustain plant growth, higher in nutrient content and more stable thus enabling the farmers to grow crops for longer periods with higher yields, and when conditions are marginal, thus making a major impact on reducing food insecurity of a region (Pretty et al. 2003).

Adopting organic fertilization, one of the extensively adopted practices under organic farming, is widely found to have positive effects on the yields. For example, Hine and Pretty (2008) showed that maize yields increased by 100% (from 2 to 4 t ha−1) in Kenya in 2005; Parrott and Marsden (2002) reported that millet yields increased by 75–195% (from 0.3 to 0.6–1 t ha−1) and groundnut by 100–200% (from 0.3 to 0.6–0.9 t ha−1) in Senegal in 2001. Scialabba and Hattam (2002) further showed that potato yields increased by 250–375% (from 4 to 10–15 t ha−1) in Bolivia between the early 1980s and 2000.

Various researchers have similarly demonstrated that food security is significantly higher for organic farmers because of the production of a diverse range of products at reduced input cost (IFAD 2005). Organic farmers have considerably higher on-farm diversity, growing on average 50% more crops than conventional farmers, better soil fertility, less soil erosion, increased tolerance of crops to pests and diseases, and better farm management skills (Altieri et al. 2015).

The FAO conference on organic agriculture and food security, held in May 2007, concluded that organic agriculture has the potential to improve food security in developing countries, particularly among small-scale farmers who are often among the poorest and least food secure (Scialabba 2007).

Conservation Agriculture

Conservation agriculture (CA), which is based on minimum tillage, permanent soil cover, and crop rotations, is promoted as a remedy for the problems of poor agricultural productivity and soil degradation in sub-Saharan Africa (Maetz et al. 2011). CA is claimed to offer benefits of increased soil organic matter, improvements in water harvesting, reduction in the risk of crop failure, increased and stabilized yields, reduction in soil erosion, improvement in soil structure, reduced pests and diseases, reduced weed pressure, increased productivity, and enhancing food security (Derpsch et al. 2010; Li et al. 2011; Marongwe et al. 2011). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of CA on maize yields revealed that with crop rotations, soil cover, and high-input use, maize yields under CA generally increase over time in low-rainfall areas (Rusinamhodzi et al. 2011).

Results from on-station trials at Monze Farmer Farmer Training Centre (MFTC) in Zimbabwe and Zambia, comparing conventionally plowed and conservation agriculture systems, showed generally higher infiltration and soil moisture on CA plots with residue retention. Higher available soil moisture on CA fields especially during critical crop development stages resulted in higher maize grain yield at MFTC in 2005/2006 thus showing higher rainfall-use efficiency (Thierfelder and Wall 2009).

Agroforestry Practices

Agroforestry systems, encompassing a wide range of land use practices (e.g., farming with trees on contours, bush and tree fallows, establishing shelter belts, and riparian zones/buffer strips with woody species), can increase C storage in the vegetation and in the soil and may also reduce soil C losses stemming from erosion (Paustian et al. 2004; Lal 2003). Through contributing to soil organic matter and mulch material, trees help increase water infiltration into the soil, improve moisture retention, and reduce evaporation – effectively increasing crop resistance to drought. The benefits of agroforestry with leguminous trees in southern Africa have been attributed to substantial amounts of N2 fixation and P recovery, greater CS, and provision of a more resilient agroecosystem with stable crop yields (Sanchez et al. 1997a, b; Vanlauwe et al. 2005; Sileshi et al. 2012). For example, Sharma (2000) and Parrott and Marsden (2002) reported yield increases of 175% on farms in Nepal between 1999 and 2000. Soto-Pinto et al. (2000) studied outputs from shade-grown coffee production in Mexico and found that shaded groves had higher yields (23–38%) than conventional production, based on surveys conducted between 1996 and 1999. Systems involving use of trees or shrubs to delimit fields (live fences) were also found to increase yields, e.g., Ellis-Jones and Mason (1999) reported increased yields from13.5 to 31.7 tha−1 of cassava between 1996 and 1999.

Apart from boosting crop yields, advances in agroforestry have many links with improving the health and nutrition of the rural poor. The expansion of fruit tree cultivation on farms can have a significant effect on the quality of child nutrition. This is particularly important as indigenous fruit tree resources in local forests are overexploited (Garrity 2004).

Biochar Initiatives

Concomitant with CS, biochar is rapidly being promoted as a “multiple win” technology for small farmers in Africa and beyond (Leach et al. 2011). It is intended to improve soil properties and functions relevant to agronomic and environmental performance (Lehmann and Joseph 2009; Woolf et al. 2010). Biochar-based strategies are thus being seen to offer valuable routes to building sustainable agricultural futures – not least for resource-poor farmers for whom soil fertility and water availability are seen as key constraints on crop production and food security. In relation to agriculture, it is argued that the burial of biochar provides a potentially powerful method for enhancing soils, helping them to retain nutrients and water, enabling increases in agricultural productivity without, or with much reduced, applications of inorganic fertilizer. (Leach et al. 2011). When applied to sandy acidic soils in southwestern USA, biochar increased SOC and improved overall fertility (Novak et al. 2009). Rondon et al. (2006) reported improved biological nitrogen fixation by bean crops with application of biochar, and improved B and Mo availability.

In SSA, studies have also reported yield increases following biochar application (e.g., Kimetu et al. 2008). In Zambia, maize yield increases of between 80% and over 400% were observed on biochar-amended soil relative to the control (Cornelissen et al. 2013). On a degraded tropical soil in Kenya, Kimetu et al. (2008) demonstrated that biochar had the capacity to restore soil quality and crop productivity, resulting in about 2.9 tons more yield on biochar-amended soil than control plots with fertilizer but no biochar. These yield increases are also associated with increases in nutrient and water use efficiencies (Utomo et al. 2011; Liang et al. 2006). Enhancing resource use efficiency is particularly important in smallholder agroecosystems, where losses of both water and nutrients via runoff and deep drainage are often high. In Ghana, Yeboah et al. (2009) reported up to 5% increase in N recovery when biochar was applied to maize fields on a sandy soil. An increase in nutrient uptake of 100 kg K ha−1, 10 kg Mg ha−1, and 5 kg Ca ha−1 was observed in maize in Columbia (Major et al. 2010). This was accompanied by a progressive maize yield increase from 28% to 140% over 4 years (Major et al. 2010). In a study by Lehmann et al. (2003), a 70% increase in cowpea biomass production was noted compared to control with no biochar application. These increase in crop yields were attributed to the liming effect of the biochar, increased availability of Ca and Mg, proliferation of N-fixing bacteria in leguminous crops, and nutrient and water retention and bioavailability (Lehmann et al. 2003; Liang et al. 2006; Major et al. 2010). Chan and Xu (2009) reported yield increases of R. sativus with the application of 10, 25, and 50 t ha−1 of biochar produced from poultry manure. In summary, given that carbon in biochar is not directly taken up by plants, the impact of biochar on crop productivity is largely through improvements in soil physical, chemical, and biological properties.

Climate-Smart Agriculture

Adaptation options that sustainably increase productivity, enhance resilience to climatic stresses, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are known as climate-smart agricultural (CSA) technologies, practices, and services (FAO 2010). Broadly, CSA focuses on developing resilient food production systems that lead to food and income security under progressive climate change and variability (Vermeulen et al. 2012; Lipper et al. 2014). Such CSA technologies and practices include (also discussed elsewhere in this article) residue incorporation, minimum tillage, mulching, intercropping, conservation agriculture, crop rotation, integrated crop-livestock management, agroforestry, improved grazing, and improved nutrient and irrigation/water management techniques (Table 1) (Branca et al. 2011; Jat et al. 2014; Sapkota et al. 2015).
Table 1

CSA technologies and practices and their impact on crop yields

Practices

Details of the practices

Impacts on crop yields

Improved agronomic practices

Cover crops

Higher yields due to reduced on-farm erosion and reduced nutrient leaching (e.g., Kaumbutho and Kienzle 2007; Pretty 2000; Altieri 2001)

Crop rotations

Higher yields when cropped, due to increased soil fertility (e.g., Kwesiga et al. 2003)

Improved varieties

Increased crop yield (e.g., Pretty 2000; Hine and Pretty 2008)

Use of legumes in the rotation

Higher yields due to increased N in soil (e.g., Hine and Pretty 2008; Parrott and Marsden 2002)

Integrated nutrient management

Increased efficiency of N fertilizer, organic fertilization, legumes and green manure, organic manure

Higher yields through increased soil fertility and more efficient use of N fertilizer (e.g., Hine and Pretty 2008; Parrott and Marsden 2002; Scialabba and Hattam 2002; Altieri 2001)

Tillage/residue management

Incorporation of residues

Higher yields through increased soil fertility, increased water holding capacity (e.g., Lal 1981)

Reduced/zero tillage

Higher yields over long run, particularly where increased soil moisture is valuable (e.g., Hine and Pretty 2008)

Water management

Irrigation

Higher yields, greater intensity of land use (e.g., Khan 2005)

Bunds/zai, tied-ridge system

Higher yields, particularly where increased soil moisture is key constraint (e.g., Lal 1981, Kasie 2008)

Terraces, contour farming

Higher yields due to reduced soil and water erosion, increased soil quality (e.g., Shively 1999; Altieri 2001; Dutilly-Diane et al. 2003; Posthumus 2005)

Water harvesting

Higher yields (e.g., Parrott and Marsden 2002; Parrott and Marsden 2002, Pretty 2000)

Agroforestry

Live barriers/fence

Higher yields (e.g., Ellis-Jones and Mason 1999)

Various agroforestry practices

Potentially greater food production, greater yields on adjacent croplands from reduced erosion in medium-long term, better rainwater management, and where tree cash crops improves food accessibility (e.g., Sharma 2000 as cited by Parrott and Marsden (2002); Soto-Pinto 2000; Verchot et al. 2007)

Adopted from Branca et al. (2011)

A few examples of actual yield increases (summarized in Table 1) under CSA practices are demonstrated by a study from Kenya in which maize yield increased from 1.2–1.8 to 2.0 t ha−1 (Kaumbutho and Kienzle 2007) and Benin where farmers attained maize yields equivalent to the application of 130 kg N ha−1 (Pretty and Hine 2001) with the use of mucuna (Mucuna puriens) cover crop. The use of sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) as green manures in Cuba provided the equivalent of 175 kg N ha−1 to squash; in addition, the green manures improved the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil (Altieri 2009). The CSA practices and technologies have the potential for increased carbon sequestration, therefore contributing to climate change mitigation and agricultural production sustainability.

Integration of Technologies for Enhanced CS and Agricultural Sustainability

SDG #2 aims to “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.” The approaches, discussed herein, used to enhance soil organic carbon (SOC), which refers to containing C in soil organic matter (SOM), and subsequently soil CS in their entirety are concurrently geared toward promoting sustainable agriculture production. Sustainable agriculture centers on the need to develop technologies and practices that do not adversely affect environmental goods and services and that lead to improvements in food productivity (FAO 1989). The capacity for soils to sequester carbon hinges upon SOM content. Aside from CS itself, increasing SOM also enhances structural stability, improves water holding capacity and aeration, promotes nutrient exchange, supports buffering capacity and besides is an important indicator of soil quality and agricultural sustainability (Swift and Woomer 1993). Since increasing SOC may also be able to mitigate some local environmental problems, it will be necessary to have integrated soil management practices that are compatible with increasing SOM management, controlling soil residual nutrients, and enhancing plant growth and agronomic productivity (Tiessen et al. 1994; Reeves 1997), and promoting agricultural sustainability. Sustainable agriculture is thus crucial in the delivery of outcomes within the 17 SDGs including but not limited to no poverty and zero hunger (Lal 2008).

Conclusion

Agriculture is key to attaining the UN Sustainable Development Goal on zero/eradicating hunger (SDG #2) and securing food for a growing world population, estimated to reach 9–10 billion by 2050. This population would require an increase in global food production of between 60 and 110% (Foley et al. 2005; IAASTD 2008; Tilman et al. 2011; Pardey et al. 2014). The SDG #2 broadly integrates and links food security, nutrition, and a sustainable and climate-resilient agriculture. Advancing SDG #2 through management of soil health has been touted as a panacea to ending hunger through enhancing the quantity and quality of food (Lal 2016). According to CNES (1999), to eradicate malnutrition and hunger, soil quality must be restored rapidly toward 2050, and its management is closely connected with the management of SOC pool and CS. Enhancing the SOC concentration (through, e.g. mulch farming and cover cropping, complex rotations including agroforestry, integrated nutrient management in conjunction with use of crop varieties that produce large root biomass and fix biological nitrogen and recycling of plant nutrients fortified by rhizobial and mycorrhizal inoculations, fertigation with drip subirrigation, and creating disease-suppressive soils through improvement of rhizospheric processes, increasing the amount of land under permanent grassland or forest vegetation, protection of trees on farmland, mixing trees with crops and emphasizing mixed stands of trees) was variously reported to play an important role toward increasing crop productivity and by extension reducing hunger. The CS that is similarly enhanced through increasing crop yields, inputs use efficiency (e.g., fertilizer, irrigation) and soil biodiversity is thus an important mechanism for advancing SDG #2. Frequently advocated technologies that enhanced carbon sequestration and mitigated climate change were inter alia reported as organic farming, conservation agriculture, agroforestry, biochar initiatives, and climate-smart agriculture. Agricultural management practices that enhance soil carbon storage were thus found to serve multiple roles including climate change mitigation, improving soil health, and the overarching benefit of sustainable agricultural productivity. With sustainable and resilient agricultural productivity, hunger and poverty would be addressed and thus contributing to the realization of SDG #2.

Cross-References

References

  1. Altieri AM, Clara I, Nicholls CI, Henao A, Lana AM (2015) Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron Sustain Dev 35:869–890.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altieri MA (2009) The ecological impacts of large-scale agrofuel monoculture production systems in the Americas Bull Sci Technol Soc 29:236–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batjes NH (2001) Options for increasing carbon sequestration in west African soils: an explanatory study with special focus on Senegal. Land Degrad Dev 12: 131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer A, Black AL (1994) Quantification of the effect of soil organic matter content on soil productivity. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker M, Johnson DE (2001) Cropping intensity effects on upland rice yield and sustainability in West Africa. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 59:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhadauria T, Ramakrishnan PS (1996) Role of earthworms in nitrogen cycling during the cropping phase of shifting agriculture (Jhum) in north-east India. Biol and Fer of Soils 22(4):350–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Branca G, McCarthy N, Lipper L, Jolejole MC (2011) Climate smart agriculture: a synthesis of empirical evidence of food security and mitigation benefits from improved cropland management. Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture (MICCA) series. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, p 3Google Scholar
  8. Chambers A, Lal R, Paustian K (2016) soil carbon sequestration potential of US croplands and grasslands: implementing the 4 per thousand initiative. J Soil Water Conserv 71:68A–76A.  https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.71.3.68ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan KY, Xu Z (2009) Biochar: nutrient properties and their enhancement. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) Biochar for environmental management: science and technology. Earthscan, London, pp 67–84Google Scholar
  10. Coleman K, Jenkinson DS (1995) ROTHC-26.3. A model for the Turnover of Carbon in Soil. Model Description and User’s Guide. Lawes Agricultural Trust, Harpenden, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Cornelissen G, Martinsen V, Shitumbanuma V, Alling V, Breedveld GD, Rutherford D, Sparrevik M, Hale SE, Obia A, Mulder J (2013) Biochar effect on maize yield and soil characteristics in five conservation farming sites in Zambia. Agron J 3:256–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Derpsch R, Friedrich T, Kassam A, Hongwen L (2010) Current status of adoption of no-till farming in the world and some of its main benefits. Int J Agric Biol Eng 3(1):1–25Google Scholar
  13. Díaz-Zorita J HG, Perfect E (2005) Soil fragment size distribution and compactive effects on maize root seedling elongation in moist soil M. Published in Crop Sci 45:1417–1426Google Scholar
  14. Dutilly-Diane C, Sadoulet E, de Janvry A (2003) How improved natural resource management in agriculture promotes the livestock economy in the sahel. J African Econ 12:343–370Google Scholar
  15. Ellis-Jones J, Mason T (1999) Livelihood strategies and assets of small farmers in the evaluation of soil and water management practices in the temperate inter-Andean valleys of Bolivia. Mt Res Dev 19:221–234Google Scholar
  16. Fan J, Liang S, Zhang B, Zhang J (2013) Enhanced organics and nitrogen removal in batch operated vertical flow constructed wetlands by combination of intermittent aeration and step feeding strategy. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:2448–2455.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-012-1130-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. FAO (2009) Food security and agricultural mitigation in developing countries: options for capturing synergies. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), RomeGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO (2010) Climate-smart agriculture: policies, practices and financing for food security, adaptation and mitigation. Technical Input for the First Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change in the Netherlands. The Hague. 31 Oct to 5 Nov 2010. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1881e/i1881e00.pdf
  19. FAO (2013) Climate-smart agriculture: sourcebook. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), RomeGoogle Scholar
  20. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Food and Agriculture Organization (2016) The state of food and agriculture 2016: climate change, agriculture and food security, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6030e.pdf. Accessed 29 Sept 2018
  22. Garrity DP (2004) Agroforestry and the achievement of the millennium development goals. Agrofor Syst 61:5–17Google Scholar
  23. Gijsman AJ, Hogenboom G, Parton WJ, Kerridge PC (2002) Modifying DSSAT crop models for low-input agricultural systems using a soil organic matter-residue module from century. Agron J 94:462–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Godfray HCJ, Beddington RJ, Crute RI, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, Pretty J, Robinson S, Thomas SM, Toulmin C (2010) Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Sci 327:812–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayne RA (1940) Make the soil productive: we can’t grow crops on poor land. Education series, vol 2, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  26. Hepperly P, Douds D Jr, Seidel R (2006) The Rodale farming system trial 1981–2005: long term analysis of organic and conventional maize and soybean cropping systems. In: Raupp J, Pekrun C, Oltmanns M, Köpke U (eds) Long-term field experiments in organic farming. International Society of Organic Agricultural Research (ISOFAR), Bonn, pp 15–32Google Scholar
  27. Hine R, Pretty J (2008) Organic agriculture and food security in Africa. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and United Nations Environment Programme, GenevGoogle Scholar
  28. IAASTD (2008) Agriculture at a crossroads: The synthesis report. Washington, DC, USA. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. www.agassessment.org
  29. IFAD (2005) Organic agriculture for poverty reduction in Asia: China and India focus. In: Thematic evaluation, international fund for agricultural development, report 1664, p 80Google Scholar
  30. Ingram JSI, Gregory PJ, Izac A-M (2008) The role of agronomic research in climate change and food security policy. Agric Ecosyst Environ 126:4–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Izaurralde RC, Williams JR, McGill WB, Rosenburg NJ (2001) Simulating soil carbon dynamics, erosion and tillage with EPIC. In: Paper presented at the first national conference on carbon sequestration. US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, May 14–17, 2001Google Scholar
  32. Izaurralde RC, Williams JR, McGill WB, Rosenberg NJ, Quiroga Jakas MC (2002) Simulating soil C dynamics with EPIC: Model description and testing against long-term data. Agronomy Abstracts, CD-ROM. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  33. Jat ML, Singh B, Gerard B (2014) Nutrient management and use efficiency in wheat systems of South Asia. Adv Agron 125:171–259Google Scholar
  34. Johnson AE (1986) Soil organic matter, effects on soils and crops. Soil Use and Management 2(3):97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jenkinson DS, Rayner JH (1977) The turnover of soil organic matter in some of the Rothamsted classical experiments. Soil Sci 123:298–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kanchikerimath M, Singh (2001) Soil organic matter and biological properties after 26 years of maize–wheat–cowpea cropping as affected by manure and fertilization in a Cambisol in semiarid region of India. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 86:(2):155–162Google Scholar
  37. Kane D (2015) Carbon sequestration potential on agricultural lands: a review of current sciences and available practices. National Sustainable Agriculture Cooperation. Available at http://sustainableagriculture.net/publications
  38. Kasie MJ, Pender M, Yesuf G, Kohlin R, Buffstone P, Zikhali, Mulugeta E (2008) Sustainable land management practices improve agricultural productivity. Policy brief. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Environment for Development (EFD)Google Scholar
  39. Kaumbutho P, Kienzle J (eds) (2007) Conservation agriculture as practiced in Kenya: two case studies. African Conservation Tillage Network and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Nairobi, Kenya. http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/doc/Kenya_casestudy.pdf. Accessed 26March 2019 
  40. Kaur B, Gupta SR, Singh G (2000) Soil carbon, microbial activity and nitrogen availability in agroforestry systems on moderately alkaline soils in northern India. Appl Soil Ecol 15:283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaur B, Gupta SR, Singh G (2002a) Bioamelioration of a sodic soil by Silvopastoral Systems in Northwestern India. Agrofor Syst 54:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kaur B, Gupta SR, Singh G (2002b) Carbon storage and nitrogen cycling in Silvopastoral systems on a sodic soil in northwestern India. Agrofor Syst 54:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Khan M, Khan R, Wahab A and Rashid A (2005) Yield and yield components of wheat as influenced by intercropping of chickpea, lentil and rapeseed in different proportions. Pak J Sci 42(3–4):1–3Google Scholar
  44. Kimetu JM, Lehmann J, Ngoze SO, Mugendi DN, Kinyangi JM, Riha S, Verchot L, Recha JW, Pell AN (2008) Reversibility of soil productivity decline with organic matter of differing quality along a degradation gradient. Ecosystems 11:726–739.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-008-9154-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Küstermann B, Kainz M, Hülsbergen KJ (2008) Modelling carbon cycles and estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from organic and conventional farming systems. Renewable Agric Food Syst 23:38–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kwesiga F, Akinnifesi FK, Mafongoya PL, Mcdermott MH, Agumya A (2003) Agroforestry research and development in southern Africa during 1990s: Review and challenges ahead. Agroforest Syst 53:173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lal R (1981) Soil erosion problems on alfisols in western Nigeria. VI. Effects of erosion on experimental plots. Geoderma 25:215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lal R (2000) World cropland soils as a source or sink for atmospheric carbon. Adv Agron 71:145–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lal R (2002) Soil carbon dynamics in cropland and rangeland. Environ Pollut 116:353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lal R (2003) Global potential of soil carbon sequestration to mitigate the greenhouse effect. Crit Rev Plant Sci 22(2):151–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lal R (2004a) Soil carbon sequestration impact on global climate change and good security. Science 304: 1623–1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lal R (2004b) Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lal R (2008) Soils and India’s food security. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 56:129–38Google Scholar
  54. Lal R (2010a) Enhancing eco-efficiency in agroecosystems through soil C sequestration. Crop Sci 50:S120–S131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lal R (2010b) Managing soils and ecosystems for mitigating anthropogenic carbon emissions and advancing global food security. Bioscience 60:708–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lal R (2010c) Managing soils for a warming earth in a food-insecure and energy-starved world. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 173:4–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lal R (2016) Beyond COP21: potential and challenges of the “4 per thousand” initiative. J Soil Water Conserv 71:20A–25ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Leach M, Fairhead J, Fraser J (2011) Land grabs for biochar ? Narratives and counter biogenic carbon sequestration economy global land grabbing. In: International Conference on global land grabbing, Brighton, p 24Google Scholar
  59. Lehmann J, da Silva JP, Steiner C, Nehls T, Zech W, Glaser B (2003) Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon basin: fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments. Plant Soil 249:343–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) (2009) Biochar for environmental management: science and technology. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Liang BL, Solomon J, Kinyangi D, Grossman J, ONeill J, Skjemstad B (2006) Black carbon increases cation exchange capacity in soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70: 1719–1730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Li L, Huang G, Zhang R, Bill B, Guangdi L, Kwong YC (2011) Benefits of conservation agriculture on soil and water conservation and its progress in China. Agric Sci China 10(6):850–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lipper P, Thornton BM, Campbell EF, Torquebiau EF (2014) Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat Clim Chang 4:1068–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Loveland P, Webb J (2003) Is there a critical level of organic matter in the agricultural soils of temperate regions: a review. Soil Tillage Res 70:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Maetz M, Aguirre M, Kim S, Matinroshan Y, Pangrazio G, Pernechele V (2011) Food and agricultural policy trends after the 2008 food security crisis. Renewed attention to agricultural development. Resources for Policy Making. Applied Work, EASYPol Module 125 FAO, FAO. http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/932/policy-trends_125en.pdf. Accessed 28 Sept 2018
  66. Major J, Rondon M, Molina D, Riha SJ, Lehmann J (2010) Maize yield and nutrition during 4 years after biochar application to a Colombian savanna oxisol. Plant Soil 333:117–128.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0327-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Marongwe LS, Kwazira K, Jenrich M, Thierfelder C, Kassam A, Friedrich T (2011) An African success: the case of conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe. Int J Agric Sustain 9(1):153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Montagnini F, Nair PKR (2004) Carbon sequestration: an underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 61:281–295Google Scholar
  69. Mueller ND, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Ray DK, Ramankutty N, Foley JA (2012) Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490(7419):254–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Novak JM, Busscher WJ, Laird DL, Ahmedna M, Watts DW, Nianou MAS (2009) Impact of biochar amendment on fertility of a southeastern US coastal plain soil. Soil Sci 174(2):105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ogle SM, Breidt FJ, Paustian K (2005) Agricultural management impacts on soil organic carbon storage under moist and dry climatic conditions of temperate and tropical regions. Biogeochemistry 72:87–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ostrom E (1998) Social capital: a fad or fundamental concept? Center for the Study of institutions, population and environmental change. Indiana University, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  73. Overstreet LF, DeJong-Hughes J (2009) The importance of soil organic matter in cropping systems of the Northern Great Plains. American Society of Agronomy-International Crop Adviser Board’s Online Self Study Exam. Available at: http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/M1273.html
  74. Pagliai M, Vignozzi N, Jones R (2002) The soil pore system as an indicator of soil quality. Sustain. Land Manag. Environ Prot 35:71–82Google Scholar
  75. Pan G, Zhou P, Li Z, Smith P, Li L, Qiu D et al (2009) Combined inorganic/organic fertilization enhances N efficiency and increases rice productivity through organic carbon accumulation in a rice paddy from the Tai Lake region, China. Agric Ecosyst Environ 131:274–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pardey PG, Beddow JM, Hurley TM, Beatty TKM, Eidman VR (2014) A bounds analysis of world food futures: Global agriculture through to 2050. Austral J Agric and Res Econ 58:571–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Parrott N, Marsden T (eds) (2002) The real green revolution: organic and agroecological farming in the south. Greenpeace Environment Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
  78. Parton WJ, Ojima DS, Cole CV, Schimel DS (1994) A general model for soil organic matter dynamics: sensitivity to litter chemistry, texture and management. In: Bryant RB, Arnold RW (eds) Quantitative modeling of soil forming processes. Special Publication, vol 39. SSSA, Madison, pp 147–167Google Scholar
  79. Paul H, Ernsting A, Semino S, Gura S, Lorch A (2009) Agriculture and climate change: real problems, false solutions. EcoNexus, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  80. Paustian K, Babcock B, Kling C, Hatfield JL, Lal R, McCarl B, McLaughlin S, Post WM, Mosier AR, Rice C, Robertson GP, Rosenberg NJ, Rosenzweig C, Schlesinger WH, Zilberman D (2004) Climate change and greenhouse gas mitigation: challenges and opportunities for agriculture. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Task Force Report No. 141, p. 120Google Scholar
  81. Petchawee S, Chaitep W (1995) Organic matter management for sustainable agriculture. In: LeFroy RDB, Blaci GJ, Craswell ET (eds) Organic Matter Management in Upland Systems in Thailand. ACIAR: Camberra; pp 21–26Google Scholar
  82. Pimentel D, Hepperly P, Hanson J, Douds D, Seidel R (2005) Environmental, energetic and economic comparison of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience 55:573–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Posthumus H (2005) Adoption of Terraces in the Peruvian Andes. Doctoral Thesis, Wageningen UniversityGoogle Scholar
  84. Pretty JN, Hine R (2001) Reducing food poverty with sustainable agriculture: a summary of new evidence. Final report: SAFE-World Research Project. University of Essex, ColchesterGoogle Scholar
  85. Pretty J, Morison JIL, Hine RE (2003) Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agric Ecosys Environ 95(1): 217–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pretty J, Smith G, Goulding KWT, Groves SJ, Henderson I, Hine RE, King V, van Oostrum J, Pendlington DJ, Vis JK, Walter C (2008) Multi-year assessment of Unilever’s progress towards agricultural sustainability: indicators, methodology and pilot farm results Int J Agric Sustain 6:37–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Pretty JN (2000) An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture Agric. Syst 65(2):113–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(00)00031-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Pretty JN, Noble AD, Bossio D, Dixon J, Hine RE, Penning FWT,.de Vries, Morison JIL (2006) Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries Environmental Science & Technology 40(4):1114–1119Google Scholar
  89. Reeves DW (1997) The role of soil organic matter in maintaining soil quality in continuous cropping systems. Soil Tillage Res 43:131–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rojas RV, Achouri M, Maroulis J, Caon L (2016) Healthy soils, a prerequisite for sustainable food security. Environ Earth Sci 75:108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rondon MA, Lehmann J, Ramírez J, Hurtado M (2006) Biological nitrogen fixation by common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) increases with bio-char additions. Biol Fertil Soils 43:699–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Roy A (2010) The role of fertilizers in food production. In: Lal R, Stewart BA (eds) Food production and soil quality. Taylor and Francis, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  93. Rusinamhodzi L, Corbeels M, van Wijk MT, Rufino MC, Nyamangara J, Giller KE (2011) A meta-analysis of long-term effects of conservation agriculture on maize grain yield under rain-fed conditions. Agron Sustain Dev 31:657–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sanchez PA, Shepherd KD, Soule MI, Place FM, Buresh RJ, Izac AMN (1997a) Soil fertility replenishment in Africa: An investment in natural resource capital. In: Buresh RJ, Sanchez PA, Calhoun F (eds) Replenishing soil fertility in Africa. SSSA Special Publication, vol 51. SSSA and ASA, Madison, pp 1–46.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaspecpub51.c1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Sanchez PA, Buresh RJ, Leakey RRB (1997b) Trees, soils and food security. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B 353:949–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sapkota TB, Jat ML, Aryal JP, Jat RK, Khatri-Chhetri A (2015) Climate change adaptation, greenhouse gas mitigation and economic profitability of conservation agriculture: some examples from cereal systems of indo-Gangetic Plains. J Integr Agric 14:1524–1533.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61093-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Scialabba N, Hattam C (Eds.) (2002) Organic Agriculture, Environment and Food Security, Environment and Natural Resources Series 4, Food and Agriculture Organisation, RomeGoogle Scholar
  98. Scialabba NE (2007) Organic agriculture and food security in Africa. In A. Nærstad (ed.). Africa Can Feed Itself. Organizing Committee of the Conference in Oslo, Norway, June 6–8, 2007. The Development Fund, Grensen, Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  99. Sharma G (2000) Sustaining Nepalese agriculture: the permaculture (sustainable agriculture) approach. In: Paper presented at the IFOAM 2000: the world grows organic. 13th international IFOAM scientific conference, Basel, 28–31 Aug 2000Google Scholar
  100. Shively G E (1999) Risks and returns from soil conservation: evidence from low-income farms in the Philippines Environmental Monitoring Assessment 62:55–69Google Scholar
  101. Sileshi GW, Debusho LK, Akinnifesi FK (2012) Can integration of legume trees increase yield stability in rainfed maize cropping systems in southern Africa? Agron J 104:1392–1398.  https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2012.0063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Soto-Pinto L, Perfecto I, Castello-Hernandez J, Caballero-Nieto J (2000) Shade effect on coffee production at the northern Tzeltal zone in the state of Chiapas, Mexico. Agric Ecosyst Environ 80(1):61–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00134-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Sundquist ET, Burruss RC, Faulkner SP, Gleason RA, Harden JW, Kharaka YK, Tieszen LL, Waldrop MP (2008) Carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Fact Sheet 2008–3097. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, 4 pp. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3097/pdf/CarbonFS.pdfGoogle Scholar
  104. Swift MJ, Woomer PL (1993) Organic matter and the sustainability of agricultural systems: definitions and measurements. In erkx, K. Mulongoy (Eds), Dynamics of Organic Matter in Relation to the Sustainability of Agricultural Systems, John Wiley, Chichester, pp 3–18Google Scholar
  105. Thierfelder C, Wall PC (2009) Effects of conservation agriculture techniques on infiltration and soil water content in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Soil Tillage Res 105(2):217–227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.07.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Tiessen H, Cuevas E, Chacon P (1994) The role of soil organic matter in sustaining soil fertility. Nature 371:783–785.  https://doi.org/10.1038/371783a0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Tilman DC, Balzer J, Hill B, Befort L (2011) Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108:20260–20264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Trevors JT (2009) Climate change: agriculture and hunger. Water Air Soil Pollut (2010) 205(Suppl 1):S105.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-009-0177-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. UN (1992) UN Earth Summit Agenda 21. The United Nations programme of action from Rio United Nations Department of Public Information, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  110. UN (2000) UN, 2000. Millennium declaration: resolution adopted by the General Assembly. A/RES/55/2. United Nations, New York, 18 September 2000Google Scholar
  111. UN (United Nations) (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. United Nations General Assembly Resolution, 2015 September 18. Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
  112. UNEP-UNCTAD (2008) Organic agriculture and food security in Africa (UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2007/15). Available at http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf
  113. UNFCCC (2015) The “4 per thousand” initiative: soils for food security and climate. Available at http://agriculture.gouv.fr/4-pour-1000-et-si-la-solution-climat-passait-par-les-sols-03
  114. Utomo WH, Kusuma Z, Nugroho WH (2011) Soil fertility status, nutrient uptake, and maize (Zea mays L.) yield following biochar and cattle manure application on sandy soils of Lombok, Indonesia. J Trop Agric 49(1/2):47–52Google Scholar
  115. Vanlauwe B, J. Diels J, Sanginga N, and Merckx R (2005) Long-term integrated soil fertility management in South-Western Nigeria: crop performance and impact on the soil fertility status. Plant Soil 273:337354.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-005-0194-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Verchot LV, Noordwijk MV, Kandji S, Tomich T, Ong C, Albrecht A, Mackensen J, Bantilan C, Anupama KV, Palm C (2007) Climate change: linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 12:901–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Vermeulen SJ, Campbell BM, Ingram JSI (2012) Climate change and food systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:195–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, Lehmann J, Joseph S (2010) Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat Commun 1(56).  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1053
  119. Yeboah E, Ofori P, Quansah GW, Dugan E, Sohi SP (2009) Improving soil productivity through biochar amendments to soils. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 3(2):034–041Google Scholar
  120. Zhang D, Yan M, Niu Y, Liu X, van Zwieten L, Chen De, Bian R, Cheng K, Li L, Joseph S, Zheng J, Zhang X, Zheng J, Crowley D, Filley TR, Pan G (2016) Is current biochar research addressing global soil constraints for sustainable agriculture? Agric Ecosyst Environ 226:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Land Resource Management and Agricultural Technology, College of Agriculture and Veterinary SciencesUniversity of NairobiNairobiKenya

Section editors and affiliations

  • Vincent Onguso Oeba

There are no affiliations available