The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 121 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Potential for large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands
Open accessAbstract
Enhanced silicate rock weathering (ERW), deployable with croplands, has potential use for atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2) removal (CDR), which is now necessary to mitigate anthropogenic climate change 1. ERW also has possible co-benefits for improved food and soil security, and reduced ocean acidification 2-4. Here we use an integrated performance modelling approach to make an initial techno-economic assessment for 2050, quantifying how CDR potential and costs vary among nations in relation to business-as-usual energy policies and policies consistent with limiting future warming to 2 degrees Celsius 5. China, India, the USA and Brazil have great potential to help achieve average global CDR goals of 0.5 to 2 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (CO 2) per year with extraction costs of approximately US$80-180 per tonne of CO 2. These goals and costs are robust, regardless of future energy policies. Deployment within existing croplands offers opportunities to align agriculture and climate policy. However, success will depend upon overcoming political and social inertia to develop regulatory and incentive frameworks. We discuss the challenges and opportunities of ERW deployment, including the potential for excess industrial silicate materials (basalt mine overburden, concrete, and iron and steel slag) to obviate the need for new mining, as well as uncertainties in soil weathering rates and land-ocean transfer of weathered products.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Enhanced silicate rock weathering (ERW) on existing croplands could remove 0.5–2 Gt CO₂ yr⁻¹ by 2050, with China, India, the USA and Brazil having the largest potential. Estimated extraction costs of ~$80–180 t⁻¹ CO₂ are robust across business-as-usual and 2°C energy scenarios, but deployment depends on policy, social acceptance and field validation.
Key findings
- ERW could contribute 0.5–2 Gt CO₂ yr⁻¹ globally by 2050; aggregate CDR of 25–100 Gt CO₂ over five decades would save up to 10% of the remaining ~900 Gt CO₂ budget for limiting warming to below 2°C.
- The top three ranked countries for CDR potential are China, USA and India; Indonesia and Brazil also have relatively high potential due to extensive agricultural lands and suitable climates, while European countries have an order-of-magnitude lower potential than China, USA and India.
- Costs vary by nation: USA $160–180 t⁻¹ CO₂, Canada and European nations $160–190 t⁻¹ CO₂, and China, India, Mexico, Indonesia and Brazil $55–120 t⁻¹ CO₂. A carbon price of $100–150 t⁻¹ CO₂ would cover most ERW costs for key nations.
- ERW could augment 2030 NDCs by ~5–10% for China and the USA, 40% for India, and 100% of Brazil’s pledged 2030 CO₂ emissions plus some fraction of other countries’ emissions; France and Spain up to ~40%, and Poland, Italy and Germany ~10%.
Methods
- Integrated performance model with sub-national detail for major economies (USA, India, China, Brazil, Europe, plus Indonesia, Canada, Mexico), using a 1-D vertical reactive transport model with steady-state flow and a rock-grain dissolution source term.
- Baseline application rate of 40 t ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹; two basalt types (fast- and slow-weathering) and two log-normal particle size distributions; optimization of p80 for maximum net CDR; Monte Carlo sampling (n ≈ 100) for fractal-dimension uncertainty; BAU and 2°C energy scenarios for 2050.
- Cost assessment includes mining, processing, distribution/transport and spreading, using GIS origin-destination rail/road network analysis and country-specific diesel, labour and electricity costs; silicate waste production forecast using SSP2 GDP projections.
Limitations
- Stated: uncertainties in baseline application rate and basalt mineralogy; extrapolation of laboratory weathering rates to field scale; surface passivation not treated in detail; need for long-term field-scale ERW trials; potential trapping of weathered cations on ion exchange surfaces or in secondary minerals; poorly constrained duration of carbon sequestration and possible CO₂ sink saturation; possible CO₂ degassing in large river systems not considered; no account of wider impacts of ERW supply chains on other markets; recycling penetration for steel not considered beyond current rate.
- Stated: success depends on overcoming political and social inertia, developing regulatory and incentive frameworks, and wider public acceptance.
- Evident from the text: the analysis is a techno-economic modelling assessment, not field-validated; the performance model does not explicitly account for secondary clay minerals, which the authors note makes it conservative with respect to basalt dissolution.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
83 Not checked yet · 36 Own result · 31 Own interpretation · 20 No basis given · 5 Own method · 1 Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Rock grinding to reduce particle size and maximise CDR is the primary energy consuming operation in ERW 22,23,73 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Base-line simulations
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [22] Strefler, J. et al. Potential and costs of carbon dioxide removal by enhanced weathering of rocks. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 034010 (2018). source
The Techno-economic assessment (section 4) says mining and crushing have negligibly small energy demands compared with grinding, whose electricity demand rises sharply as target grain size falls. The Introduction (section 1) also links grain-size reduction to greater weathering and CDR potential. Our copy does not provide page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.89)
- Supportedcites [23] Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063002 (2018). source
Section 3.4 says enhanced weathering grinds rock to increase reactive surface area and reports that the energy demand of rock grinding creates the largest CO₂ penalty and costs. Together, these support the claim that grinding for improved carbon removal is the primary energy-consuming operation. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites [73] Moosdorf, N., Renforth, P. & Hartmann, J. Carbon dioxide efficiency of terrestrial weathering. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 4809–4816 (2014). source
The Material comminution section (lines 145–154) says that reducing rock to finer particles requires grinding and estimates its energy use at 0.6–2.0 GJ per tonne. It describes crushing as requiring minimal energy; the Material extraction section (lines 140–143) likewise describes extraction and application as requiring minimal energy. This supports grinding as the primary energy-consuming processing operation discussed. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“China, India, the United States and Brazil have large potential to help achieve average global CDR targets of 0.5 to 2 Gt CO2 yr -1 with extraction costs of ~$80-180 t -1 CO2.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“China, India, the United States and Brazil have large potential to help achieve average global CDR targets of 0.5 to 2 Gt CO2 yr -1 with extraction costs of ~$80-180 t -1 CO2.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Overall, we find the three top ranked countries with the highest CDR potential are coincidentally the highest fossil fuel CO2 emitters (China, USA and India) 6 (Figure 1).”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Le Quéré, C. et al. Global carbon budget 2018. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 2141–2194 (2018).
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Europe, ERW could aid significant decarbonisation of France and Spain (up to approximately 40%), and to a lesser extent Poland, Italy and Germany (all ~10%) (Figure 2).”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the context of our CDR targets, ERW has a similar potential to that of other CDR strategies 23 estimated for 2050, including bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), widely adopted in IPCC future scenarios (0.5-5 Gt CO2 yr -1 ), direct air carbon capture and storage (DAC) (0.5-5 Gt CO2 yr -1 ), biochar (0.5 to 2 Gt CO2 yr -1 ), soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration (0.5-5 Gt CO2 yr”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063002 (2018). source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, our ERW CDR range is comparable with large-scale implementation of BECCS in USA by 2040 (0.3-0.6 Gt CO2 yr -1 ), as constrained by biomass productivity, location and capacity of CO2 storage sites 24 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] Baik, E. et al. Geospatial analysis of near-term potential for carbon-negative bioenergy in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3290–3295 (2018). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results show that China may be able to augment its pledged 2030 NDCs by ~5-10%, with similar gains for the USA, which has opted-out of the Paris agreement.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the top three European countries with highest CDR potential are also the largest European emitters of CO2 from fossil fuels (Germany, Spain and Poland) 6 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Le Quéré, C. et al. Global carbon budget 2018. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 2141–2194 (2018).
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results show that China may be able to augment its pledged 2030 NDCs by ~5-10%, with similar gains for the USA, which has opted-out of the Paris agreement.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 59
- Probably not a substantial claim. 34
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“National median CO2 removal curves typically show CDR capacity rising with increasing cropland area, with carbon removal by silicate soil amendment reaching a plateau or declining in the case of Canada (Figure 1).”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For India, the gain rises to 40% of its current pledged emissions, and Brazil may be able to offset 100% of its pledged 2030 CO2 emissions plus some fraction of those from other countries (Figure 2).”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“European countries have an order-of-magnitude lower CDR potential than China, USA, and India, mainly because of lower agricultural land area.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indonesia and Brazil, with CO2 emissions 10-20 times lower than the USA and China, have relatively high CDR potential due to extensive agricultural lands and climates suitable for high silicate rock weathering efficiency.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This contrasts with results for India, whose total energy production falls by ~40% with a transition to low carbon energy production in the 2 o C scenario, lowering energy available for grinding basalt, and thus the potential for increased CDR by ERW.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within our scenarios, the demand for basalt required for ERW rises with an increasing CDR target and scales with agricultural land area (Table 1).”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ERW cannot offset all fossil fuel emissions, but using its cost as a guide, the per capita annual cost of achieving zero net emissions, a goal for decarbonisation, would be highest for Canada ($3004), the USA ($2780), China ($832) and EU28 nations ($1288).”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Costs of carbon removal via ERW
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Our estimated ERW costs of carbon removal for nations are comparable to estimates summarized for BECCS ($100 to 200 t -1 CO2), DAC ($100-300 t -1 CO2), and biochar ($30-$120 t -1 CO2), but higher than estimates for SOC sequestration ($0-10 t -1 CO2) 23 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Costs of carbon removal via ERW
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063002 (2018). source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bulk silicate production, linked to the construction and demolition sector, is modelled to increase substantially in all four nations, with China and India having combined production by 2060 of ~13 Gt yr -1 (Figure 4).”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Our cost estimates based on current prices fall within the range of prior ERW assessments ($75-250 tCO2 -1 ) [21][22][23] while resolving differences among nations (Figure 3; Table 1; SI figs.S16-S25; SI tables S13-S14).”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Costs of carbon removal via ERW
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21][22][23]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with potential for ancillary benefits by limiting coastal zone acidification and improving food and soil security”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Basaltic minerals undergo dissolution at different rates, with some minerals continuing to undergo dissolution and capture CO2 after the first year of application.”
- Also stated in: § Extended · plain
“Basaltic minerals undergo dissolution at different rates, with some minerals continuing to undergo dissolution and capture CO2 after the first year of application.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal simulation framework
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Extended · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Carbon emissions per unit mass of ground rock depend on particle size (Extended Data Fig. 10), the CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated from component energy sources (fossil fuels, nuclear and renewables), as well as the carbon costs of sourcing and transporting the silicate materials.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Base-line simulations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Grinding to finer particles requires greater energy and results in higher carbon emissions.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Cost assessment modelling
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ERW estimated costs are comparable to current estimates for the intensive carbon removal technologies, BECCS and DAC”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results show close correspondence between models across all three flow regimes.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Capital
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the two higher flow rates, shorter residence times result in less solute accumulation within the soil profile and a weaker chemical affinity effect.”
- Also stated in: § Capital · plain
“At the two higher flow rates, shorter residence times result in less solute accumulation within the soil profile and a weaker chemical affinity effect.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > 2.5 1-D reactive transport modelling(RTM)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Capital · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Weathering inhibition appears negligible over the 1 year duration of soil weathering, other than for laboradorite, with the performance model realistically capturing the effects of chemical affinity.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > 2.5 1-D reactive transport modelling(RTM)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, labradorite dissolves to completion after 365 days, and the results of the simulations that include and neglect affinity effects converge.”
- Also stated in: § Capital · plain
“Consequently, labradorite dissolves to completion after 365 days, and the results of the simulations that include and neglect affinity effects converge.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > 2.5 1-D reactive transport modelling(RTM)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Capital · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Kfeldspar also exerts a minor affinity effect but is present in such low concentrations that its influence on the basalt-porewater system can be considered to be negligible.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Capital
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mining costs for China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Canada and Brazil calculated using the method were 5.33, 4.44, 3.97, 4.88, 6.79 and 5.42 $ t -1 , respectively and for France, Germany, Poland, Italy and Spain 7.90, 8.26, 6.76, 8.30 and 7.31 $ t -1 , respectively.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > 2.2 Cost assessment modelling.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Under the BAU scenario, CO2 emissions from grinding dominate secondary emissions associated with ERW, except for France where low carbon nuclear power dominates.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Capital
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Rail CO2 emissions were thus the same for both the business-as-usual (BAU) and 2°C scenarios.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > 2.2 Cost assessment modelling.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] DeLucia, E., Kantola, I., Blanc-Betes, E., Bernacchi, C. & Beerling, D. J. Basalt application for carbon sequestration reduces nitrous oxide fluxes from cropland. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 21, EGU2019–EGU4500 (2019).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results for the 2°C energy policy scenario are very similar.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Capital
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only labradorite (green line) in these basalts exhibits noticeable effects.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Capital
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“ERW has potential co-benefits for improved food and soil security and reduced ocean acidification [2][3][4] .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2][3][4]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such effects would further lower adverse impacts of agriculture on climate per unit yield, amplifying the climate mitigation potential of ERW.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These patterns reflect expansion of ERW into climatically unfavourable agricultural land, causing CDR potential to slow relative to the carbon penalty of logistical operations, and the 3% limit in national energy available for grinding (Extended Data Fig. 2).”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deployment with existing croplands offers opportunities to align agriculture and climate policy.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Thus, rapid deployment at large scale appears feasible within decades, with important ancillary benefits including mitigation of ocean acidification [15][16][17][18] .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15][16][17][18]
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, efficacy of CO2 removal, sink saturation, and permanency of storage with these approaches, separately and interactively, are uncertain 11,23 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] The Royal Society Greenhouse Gas Removal Technologies (The Royal Society, 2018).
- Not checked yetcites [23] Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063002 (2018). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Abatement of soil N2O emissions by basalt application to conventionally managed arable and perennial crops 31 , and of N2O and CH4 emissions by application of artificial silicates to rice agriculture 32 , is possible.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] DeLucia, E., Kantola, I., Blanc-Betes, E., Bernacchi, C. & Beerling, D. J. Basalt application for carbon sequestration reduces nitrous oxide fluxes from cropland. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 21, EGU2019–EGU4500 (2019).
- Not checked yetcites [32] Das, S. et al. Cropping with slag to address soil, environment, and food security. Front. Microbiol. 10, 1320 (2019). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“although projections of rapid technological change 5 suggest a lower requirement of 2-2.5 Gt CO2 yr -1”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Mercure, J.-F. et al. Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil fuel assests. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 588–593 (2018). source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As yet, most of the top 10 fossil carbon emitting nations are failing to meet their 2030 NDC pledges which, even if met, imply a median warming (2.6-3.1 °C) exceeding the Paris agreement 33 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Rogelj, J. et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534, 631–639 (2016). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“ERW avoids competition for land used in food production, and related increased demands of BECCS for freshwater and polluting fertilizers 25 , with CO2 being treated as a resource for mineral weathering.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Heck, V., Gerten, D., Lucht, W. & Popp, A. Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 151–155 (2018). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Basalt, an abundant fast-weathering rock with the required mineral chemistry, is a prime target for implementing land-based ERW because of its potential cobenefits for crop production 18 and soil health [2][3][4] .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] Kelland, M. E. et al. Increased yield and CO2 sequestration potential with the C4 cereal crop Sorghum bicolor cultivated in basaltic rock dust amended agricultural soil. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3658–3676 (2020). source
- Not checked yetcites [2][3][4]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Inorganic carbon sequestration by ERW appears comparable to SOC sequestration, another proposed CDR strategy (~2.5 Gt CO2 yr -1 by 2100) 27 using agricultural land, but with potentially greater long-term security of C-storage.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Mayer, A. et al. The potential of agricultural land management to contribute to lower global surface temperature. Sci. Adv. 4, eaaq0932 (2018). source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“NDC pledged carbon emission reductions undergo periodic revision in response to trends in greenhouse gas emissions, uptake of low-carbon energy technology, and climate 33 and hence are not set for 2050.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal potential via ERW
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Rogelj, J. et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534, 631–639 (2016). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“ERW liberates base cations, generating alkalinity such that atmospheric CO2 is converted into dissolved inorganic carbon (principally hydrogen carbonate ions; HCO3 -) that is removed via soil drainage waters.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2][3][4][13][14][15][16][17]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Cement contributes ~6% to global CO2 emissions 6 and ERW may represent a land management option for valorising by-products to capture carbon and improve the sustainability of this worldwide industry.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Le Quéré, C. et al. Global carbon budget 2018. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 2141–2194 (2018).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This increases the potential to bring smallholders out of extreme poverty and, in the regions with climates suitable for non-irrigated agriculture, restore highly degraded soils not suitable currently for food production.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Yet these negative effects may be reversible with ERW treatments given fertilization of irrigated rice using either natural and/or artificial silicates (e.g., recycled steel slags) replenishing plant available silica pools, increasing yields and soil pH, and decreasing the mobility of potentially toxic trace elements (e.g., arsenic) 46 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46] Ning, D. et al. Impacts of steel-slag-based fertilizer on soil acidity and silicon availability and metals-immobilization in a paddy soil. PLoS One 11, e0168163 (2016). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Understanding the balance between positive and negative outcomes in terms of public acceptance of the inevitable trade-offs between local mining activities versus global sequestered carbon, requires empirical testing with stakeholders and the wider public.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Mining generates a continuous but usually discarded finely powered silicate byproduct utilizable for ERW without embodied CO2 emissions that reduce CDR efficiency (Extended Data Fig. 6) [21][22][23] , and which has been accumulating worldwide for decades.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21][22][23]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Realizing the potential of ERW as a biogeochemical approach to sequester CO2 by altering land management practices will depend on the commitment of farmers and governments, implementation of the right policy frameworks, and wider public acceptance.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Farming practices adopted for increasing sustainable productivity, for example, have transformed agriculture across 37 million hectares in China, increasing profits by $12.2 billion over a decade 50 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] Cui, Z. et al. Pursuing sustainable productivity with millions of smallholder farmers. Nature 555, 363–366 (2018). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The current substantial rate of agricultural top-soil depletion requires urgent remedial action, with significant economic costs apparent already in China where degradation of soils supporting wheat, maize and rice production costs an estimated $12 billion annually 48 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [48] United Nations Global Land Outlook 1st edn (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, 2017).
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Agricultural production can benefit substantially from increased resource use efficiency, reducing consumption of raw materials and recovering mineral nutrients from silicate byproducts 32,42,43 , and overburden legacy reserves 44 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Das, S. et al. Cropping with slag to address soil, environment, and food security. Front. Microbiol. 10, 1320 (2019). source
- Not checked yetcites [42] Haynes, R. J., Belyaeva, O. N. & Kingston, G. Evaluation of industrial waste sources of fertilizer silicon using chemical extractions and plant uptake. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 176, 238–248 (2013). source
- Not checked yetcites [43] Rodd, A. V. et al. Surface application of cement kiln dust and lime to forage land: effect on forage yield, tissue concentration and accumulation of nutrients. Can. J. Soil Sci. 90, 201–213 (2010). source
- Not checked yetcites [44] Ramos, C.G. et al. Evaluation of soil re-mineralizer from by-product of volcanic rock mining: experimental proof using black oats and maize crops. Nat. Res. Res. 10.1007/s11053–019–09529-x (2019). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cement contributes ~6% to global CO2 emissions 6 and ERW may represent a land management option for valorising by-products to capture carbon and improve the sustainability of this worldwide industry.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Addition of trace amounts of zinc and iron could also improve public health by reversing the effect of rising CO2 levels on the declining nutritional value of food crops 49 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] Smith, M. R. & Myers, S. S. Impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on global human nutrition. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 834–839 (2018). source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“China and India dominate with above-average per capita cement consumption compared to the global average, and substantially larger populations than the USA and Brazil 38 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [38] Renforth, P. The negative emission potential of alkaline materials. Nat. Commun. 10, 1401 (2019). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Feasibility of mobilizing millions of smallholder communities to adopt ERW practices in China and India will depend on demonstrating soil improvements can reverse yield declines, and on government subsidies.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Targeted amendment of agricultural soils for CO2 removal may have a role in slowing rates of soil loss by up to 45%, with the accelerated weathering of added minerals replacing inorganic nutrients and resultant formation of clays and mineral organic aggregates increasing the cation exchange capacity and water storage capacity of rebuilt soils 4,20 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] Beerling, D. J. et al. Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and soil security. Nat. Plants 4, 138–147 (2018). source
- Not checked yetcites [20] Smith, P. et al. Land-based options for greenhouse gas removal and their impacts on ecosystem services and the sustainable development goals. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. 44, 255–286 (2019). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With 2.5 billion smallholders farming 60% of the world's arable land, a similar outreach programme could be used throughout Asia, with farmers earning more profits from higher yields while sequestering CO2.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: There are 2.5 billion smallholders farming 60% of the world's arable land.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although chemically similar to basalt, these artificial calcium-rich silicates contain minerals that dissolve several orders of magnitude faster, react rapidly with CO2 in soils under ambient conditions 40 , and are produced in fine particle sizes that facilitate accelerated weathering 41 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] Washbourne, C.-L. et al. Rapid removal of atmospheric CO2 in urban soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 5434–5440 (2015). source
- Not checked yetcites [41] Lekakh, S. N. et al. Kinetics of aqueous leaching and carbonization of steelmaking slag. Metallurg. Mater. Trans. B 39, 125–134 (2008). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Current fossil fuel emissions per person per year 6 are 16.5 t CO2 (USA), 15.1 t CO2 (Canada), 7.5 t CO2 (China), 7.3 t CO2 (EU28), 2.6 t CO2 (Brazil), 1.8 t CO2 (Indonesia) and 1.7 t CO2 (India).”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Costs of carbon removal via ERW
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Le Quéré, C. et al. Global carbon budget 2018. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 2141–2194 (2018).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Crucially, such testing needs to understand the conditions that society might place upon the development and large-scale deployment of ERW technologies, as part of a wider responsible research and innovation programme 51 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Implementation challenges and opportunities
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [51] Pidgeon, N. F. & Spence, E. Perceptions of enhanced weathering as a biological negative emissions option. Biol. Lett. 13, 20170024 (2017). source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“At this early stage of research and development, costs are uncertain and in need of demonstration projects 7,11,12 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Costs of carbon removal via ERW
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] United Nations Environment Programme The Emissions Gap Report 2018 (United Nations Environment Programme, 2018).
- Not checked yetcites [11] The Royal Society Greenhouse Gas Removal Technologies (The Royal Society, 2018).
- Not checked yetcites [12] Pacala, S. et al. Negative Emissions Technologies And Reliable Sequestration (National Academy of Sciences, 2018).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ancillary benefits of ERW may aid its early use and relieve such concern.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These functions represent the effects of a range of rhizosphere processes that accelerate the physical breakdown and chemical dissolution of minerals, including the activities of nutrient scavenging mycorrhizal fungi that physically disrupt and chemically etch mineral surfaces, and bio-production of low molecular weight organic compounds and chelating agents 63,64 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Mineral mass balance.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [63] Harley, A. D. & Gilkes, R. J. Factors influencing the release of plant nutrient elements from silicate rock powders: a geochemical overview. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 56, 11–36 (2000). source
- Not checked yetcites [64] Taylor, L. L. et al. Biological evolution and the long-term carbon cycle: integrating mycorrhizal evolution and function into the current paradigm. Geobiology 7, 171–191 (2009). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Nations that may have large ERW potential, including China, the United States and India, are all vulnerable to climate change and resultant sea-level rise 34 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] Clark, P. U. et al. Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 360–369 (2016). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The fractal dimension effectively provides a means of consolidating measurements taken at different scales and accounts for uncertainties in grain topography and porosity 72 , and mass transfer rates from rock grains to flowing soil water.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Model advances
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [72] Brantley, S. L. & Mellott, N. P. Surface area and porosity of primary silicate minerals. Am. Mineral. 85, 1767–1783 (2000). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CDR via pathway 2 can occur if dissolved inorganic carbon derived from atmospheric CO2 precipitates as pedogenic carbonate, and sequesters 1 mol of CO2 per mole of Ca 2+ instead of 1.72 mol of CO2 via pathway 2 and is therefore less efficient.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Pathway 1 for calcium ions:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Weathering products liberated from primary minerals are assumed to subsequently reach the surface ocean via continental runoff.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The potential for trapping of weathered cations on ion exchange surfaces or within secondary minerals other than carbonates delaying, or even preventing, land-ocean transfer will depend on soil type, climate, hydrological conditions, application rate and management practices.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Uncertainties
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Possible CO2 degassing due to changes in surface water chemistry during transport in large river systems 74 is not considered.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Pathway 1 for calcium ions:
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [74] Salisbury, J. E. et al. Seasonal observations of surface waters in two Gulf of Maine estuary-plume systems: relationships between watershed attributes, optical measurements and surface p CO2. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 77, 245–252 (2008). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our analysis of the techno-economic potential of CDR by ERW is subject to several uncertainties, particularly variation in our baseline application rate and basalt mineralogy.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Uncertainties
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have not considered the penetration of recycling into steel production beyond its current rate.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Forecasting bulk silicate waste production
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Innovative 'climate-smart' farming practices can be designed with ERW to draw down CO2 and other greenhouse gases while recycling nutrients, aiding soil water storage, and supporting crop production 4,18,20 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] Beerling, D. J. et al. Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and soil security. Nat. Plants 4, 138–147 (2018). source
- Not checked yetcites [18] Kelland, M. E. et al. Increased yield and CO2 sequestration potential with the C4 cereal crop Sorghum bicolor cultivated in basaltic rock dust amended agricultural soil. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3658–3676 (2020). source
- Not checked yetcites [20] Smith, P. et al. Land-based options for greenhouse gas removal and their impacts on ecosystem services and the sustainable development goals. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. 44, 255–286 (2019). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We addressed this by Monte Carlo analysis of the fractal dimension accounting for uncertainty in the apparent reacting surface area of grains for ERW conducted at large geographical scales.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Uncertainties
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Duration of carbon sequestration rate, and possibility for CO2 sink saturation with ERW on croplands, are both poorly constrained by data, in common with other land-based CDR strategies 11,23 , and affect cumulative CDR potential in coming decades.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Uncertainties
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] The Royal Society Greenhouse Gas Removal Technologies (The Royal Society, 2018).
- Not checked yetcites [23] Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063002 (2018). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Their high risks of economic damage 53 and social disruption provide impetus for creative co-design of agricultural and climate policies.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [53] Ricke, K., Drout, L., Caldeira, K. & Tavoni, M. Country-level social cost of carbon. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 895–900 (2018). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Such practices can help restore deteriorating top-soils that underpin food security for billions of people while maximizing societal co-benefits needed to incentivise deployment 20 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Smith, P. et al. Land-based options for greenhouse gas removal and their impacts on ecosystem services and the sustainable development goals. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. 44, 255–286 (2019). source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus calculating representative annual CO2 removal rates requires computing average rates derived from repeated basaltic rock dust applications (Extended Data Fig. 7).”
- Also stated in: § Extended · plain
“Thus calculating representative annual CO2 removal rates requires computing average rates derived from repeated basaltic rock dust applications.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Carbon removal simulation framework
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Extended · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CDR via pathway 2 occurs if dissolved inorganic CO2 precipitates as pedogenic carbonate, and sequesters 1 mol of CO2 per mole of Ca 2+ instead of 1.72 mol of CO2 via pathway 1 and is therefore less efficient.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > 2.1 Carbon dioxide removal.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The fractal dimension and its uncertainty are determined from a linear regression analysis performed on measurements from a range of spatial scales 3 (10 -10 -10 3 m).”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > 1.7 Surface roughness.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Zhang, G., Kang, J., Wang, T. & Zhu, C. Review and outlook for agromineral research in agriculture and climate change mitigation. Soil Res. 56, 113–122 (2018). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Functions are fitted to mesocosm data for (a) three speies of agricultural crops (maize, rice and soybean) 46,47 , and (b) four species of mycorrhizal tree saplings 48,49 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > 2.5 1-D reactive transport modelling(RTM)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46] Ning, D. et al. Impacts of steel-slag-based fertilizer on soil acidity and silicon availability and metals-immobilization in a paddy soil. PLoS One 11, e0168163 (2016). source
- Not checked yetcites [47] Chen, J. Rapid urbanization in China: a real challenge to soil protection and food security. Catena 69, 1–15 (2007). source
- Not checked yetcites [48] United Nations Global Land Outlook 1st edn (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, 2017).
- Not checked yetcites [49] Smith, M. R. & Myers, S. S. Impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on global human nutrition. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 834–839 (2018). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The extent to which simulated pH increases promote or adversely affect crop production depends on the initial topsoil pH, crop functional traits, weathering rates, climate, flushing rates and fertiliser treatments.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Capital
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These functions represent the lumped effects of rhizosphere biological processes accelerating weathering (Section 1.9).”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > 2.5 1-D reactive transport modelling(RTM)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lower price for China, India and Brazil reflects low labour costs while the higher price for France and Germany reflects higher diesel costs.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > 2.2 Cost assessment modelling.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our cost are indicative of key features of an ERW supply chain and consistent with previous global approaches.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > 2.2 Cost assessment modelling.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Cost of spreading rock with farming machinery is equivalent to that of spreading lime ($15.18/t).
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The exceptions are Sb and Se.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Capital
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For comparison, basaltic glass powder with a diameter of 40 -120µm has a lambda 50 of ~92.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Capital
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] Cui, Z. et al. Pursuing sustainable productivity with millions of smallholder farmers. Nature 555, 363–366 (2018). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, these are less concentrated in the unmixed cement waste 59 .”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Capital
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [59] Siebert, S. & Doll, P. Quantifying blue and green virtual water contents in global crop production as well as potential production losses without irrigation. J. Hydrol. 384, 198–217 (2010). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Uncertainty in the fractal dimension affects weathering rate and consequently, through the optimization, the p80 grid cell vector.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > 2.3 Optimization.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is greatest during the first 100 days, especially under a low flow rate (200 mm yr -1 top panels) because there is little dilution of the weathered products, resulting in higher pore water concentrations exerting a stronger affinity effect.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Capital
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
There are 2.5 billion smallholders farming 60% of the world's arable land.
“With 2.5 billion smallholders farming 60% of the world's arable land”
The paper relies on this without support.
Surface passivation occurs as weathering proceeds, creating leached layers and relatively stable secondary minerals, which potentially inhibit the mass transfer kinetics of elements from the dissolving surfaces of primary minerals.
“Surface passivation, a component of chemical inhibition, occurs as weathering proceeds, creating leached layers and relatively stable secondary minerals, which potentially inhibit the mass transfer kinetics of elements from the dissolving surfaces of primary minerals.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Weathering products liberated from primary minerals are assumed to subsequently reach the surface ocean via continental runoff.
“Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) results from the mass transport of enhanced weathering products liberated from the primary minerals, which are assumed to subsequently reach the surface ocean via continental runoff, or can be precipitated as secondary carbonate minerals in the terrestrial environment.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Particles are assumed to be spherical.
“As particles are assumed to be spherical, we reformulate equation 14 in terms radius rather than mass to give:”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The scrap ratio remains unchanged.
“The ratio of pig iron to steel production (0.72) was obtained using linear regression of 1960-2014 data, negating the need to explicitly model pig iron displacement from scrap recycling, and assuming the scrap ratio remains unchanged.”
“assuming the scrap ratio remains unchanged.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
All steel and blast furnace slag is available for reaction with CO2.
“All steel and blast furnace slag was considered available for reaction with CO2.”
“All steel and blast furnace slag was considered available for reaction with CO2.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cement and cement kiln dust have no capacity to be recycled as cement.
“Cement and cement kiln dust have no capacity to be recycled as cement.”
“Cement and cement kiln dust have no capacity to be recycled as cement.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In the tropics and subtropics, annual temperature variation is relatively low.
“In the tropics and subtropics, where perennial crops dominate, annual temperature variation is relatively low.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The soil surface temperature at 5 cm depth of the 8 warmest months for 2050 represents conditions during the main growth period of most crop types found outside the tropics.
“This value is taken to represent conditions during the main growth period of most crop types found outside the tropics.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Standard calculations of rate of mineral dissolution ignore size differences in reacting particles and simulate the mineral with a surface area that corresponds to the mean diameter of a particle size distribution.
“Standard calculations of rate of mineral dissolution ignore size differences in reacting particles and simulate the mineral with a surface area that corresponds to the mean diameter of a particle size distribution (psd).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Land management practices for annual crops return cations released during dissolution, and taken up by crops back to soils via biomass decomposition.
“We assume land management practices for annual crops return cations released during dissolution, and taken up by crops back to soils via biomass decomposition.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Cost of spreading rock with farming machinery is equivalent to that of spreading lime ($15.18/t).
“Cost of spreading rock with farming machinery was considered equivalent to that of spreading lime ($15.18/t).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
A future limit of 3% of total energy production for rock comminution for all nations.
“We assume a future limit of 3% for all nations, based on the rationale that current rates for developed nations grow from around 2% today in-line with future energy scenarios 33 .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
115 kg of cement kiln dust is produced as a by-product in kilns for every tonne of clinker, and demolition waste follows an average 50-year service life (normally distributed with standard deviation 10 years).
“We assume 115 kg of cement kiln dust is produced as a by-product in kilns for every tonne of clinker, and have modelled the production of demolition waste following an average 50-year service life (normally distributed with a standard deviation of 10 years) 41 .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Interstitial waters are in equilibrium with dissolved weathering products, inorganic and organic soil cation exchange surfaces and secondary minerals.
“Interstitial waters are calculated to be in equilibrium with the dissolved weathering products, inorganic and organic soil cation exchange surfaces and secondary minerals.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Secondary minerals form and dissolve instantaneously to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium between the fluid and mineral phases.
“These were calculated to form and dissolve instantaneously to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium between the fluid and mineral phases.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The soil solution is in equilibrium with atmospheric pO2(g).
“The soil solution was equilibrated with dissolved O2 and CO2; assuming equilibrium with atmospheric pO2(g) (atm).”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Application of crushed calcium- and magnesium-rich silicate rocks to soils is proposed for large-scale CO2 removal.191 This technology was called enhanced rock weathering, which increases soil alkalinity, and thus atmospheric CO2 can be converted into dissolved inorganic C to be finally transported to the ocean, where the stored C has a long lifespan via land surface runoff.”
From Technologies and perspectives for achieving carbon neutrality (2021) · cites this paper as [191]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Costs of carbon removal via ERW
“Costs per t CO2 removed are generally within this projected carbon price range in all nations”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Costs of carbon removal via ERW
“Average costs in USA ($160-180 t -1 CO2), Canada and European nations ($160-190 t -1 CO2) are almost 50% higher than those in China, India, Mexico, Indonesia, and Brazil ($55-120 t -1 CO2).”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > 2.3 Optimization.
“the country's projected grid electricity production PGrid (Energy) for the year 2030”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > 2.3 Optimization.
“We used country-specific electricity production (PGrid) and the forecast fractional contributions to electricity production by different energy sources (coal, natural gas, oil, solar PV, concentrated solar power, hydropower, wind, marine) for 2050”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Pathway 1 for calcium ions:
“sequesters 1 mol of CO2 per mole of Ca 2+ instead of 1.72 mol of CO2 via pathway 2”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Pathway 1 for calcium ions:
“CDR, via pathway 1, potentially sequesters two moles of CO2 from the atmosphere per mole of divalent cation.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Capital
“The exceptions are Sb and Se.”
§ The potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via rock weathering on croplands > Capital
“Aluminium (mg l -1 ) 1.6 0.2 Calcium (mg l -1 ) 395 250 Iron (mg l -1 ) 0.085 0.2 to 1 Potassium (mg l -1 ) 125 10 to 12”
Citations
Cites
An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., & Meehl, G. A. (2012) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-11-00094.1 · Cited by 14,052
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Reinman, S. L. (2012) · Reference Reviews · doi:10.1108/09504121211205250 · Cited by 4,484
Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C
Rogelj, J., den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler, H., Schaeffer, R., Sha, F., Riahi, K., & Meinshausen, M. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature18307 · Cited by 3,637
Abatzoglou, J. T., Dobrowski, S. Z., Parks, S. A., & Hegewisch, K. C. (2018) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2017.191 · Cited by 3,529
Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Hauck, J., Pongratz, J., Pickers, P. A., Korsbakken, J. I., Peters, G. P., Canadell, J. G., et al. (2018) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018 · Cited by 1,645
Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects
Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., Beringer, T., de Oliveira Garcia, W., Hartmann, J., Khanna, T., et al. (2018) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f · Cited by 1,525
Pursuing sustainable productivity with millions of smallholder farmers
Cui, Z., Zhang, H., Chen, X., Zhang, C., Ma, W., Huang, C., Zhang, W., Mi, G., Miao, Y., Li, X., et al. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature25785 · Cited by 1,336
Chemical kinetics of water‐rock interactions
Lasaga, A. C. (1984) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/jb089ib06p04009 · Cited by 1,315
A roadmap for rapid decarbonization
Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aah3443 · Cited by 1,225
Hartmann, J., & Moosdorf, N. (2012) · Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems · doi:10.1029/2012gc004370 · Cited by 1,168
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–500 of 700
Do Southeast Asia's paleo‐Antarctic trees cool the planet?
Wilf, P., & Kooyman, R. M. (2023) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.19067 · Cited by 4
7th International Geologica Belgica Meeting: 15-17 September 2021 – AfricaMuseum Tervuren (Belgium)
DELVAUX, D., Dewitte, O., FERNANDEZ-ALONSO, M., Hubert, A., & ELSEN, J. (2021) · Geologica Belgica conference proceedings · doi:10.20341/gbcp.vol4 · Cited by 4
Luo, K., Ma, J., Teng, F., Wei, G., Zhu, G., Zeng, T., & Wang, Z. (2025) · Journal of Geophysical Research Earth Surface · doi:10.1029/2024jf007774 · Cited by 3
“…alkaline earth metals react chemically with CO 2 , removing CO 2 from the atmosphere, creating alkalinity, and releasing cations such as Ca and Mg (Andrews & Taylor, 2019; Beerling et al., 2020; Berner et al., 1983; Gaillardet et al., 1999; Power et al., 2013; Schuiling & Krijgsman, 2006).”
Could large‐scale silicon supplementation of crop‐lands mitigate the impacts of climate change?
Johnson, S. N., Simpson, K. J., & Hartley, S. E. (2025) · Plants People Planet · doi:10.1002/ppp3.70020 · Cited by 3
“…be accelerated by supplementing soils with silicon-rich sub-stances (silicates) to increase the availability of calcium and magnesium, which subsequently react with atmospheric CO 2 to form soil carbonates (Beerling et al., 2020; Beerling et al., 2024; Kelland et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 2017).”
Supply chain optimization for Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement: A Norwegian case study
Lindland, M., Wigand, E. A., Fagerholt, K., Meisel, F., & Herlicka, L. (2025) · International journal of greenhouse gas control · doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2025.104395 · Cited by 3
Madankan, M., Kantzas, E. P., Espinosa, R. M. E., Vetter, S. H., Koh, L. S. C., Smith, P., Beerling, D. J., & Renforth, P. (2025) · Communications Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02656-9 · Cited by 3
“TheUK,withextensivemanagedcroplandsandabundantbasicsilicate rock deposits, is particularly well-suited for large-scale deployment of ERW 8,18 – 20 .”
Self-citationRodrigues, M., Neto, C. K., dos Passos, A. I., Cézar, E., & Nanni, M. R. (2025) · AgriEngineering · doi:10.3390/agriengineering7090290 · Cited by 3
Li, A., Cheng, J., Chen, D., Chen, X., Mao, Y., Deng, Q., Zhao, B., Shi, W., Fan, Z., Wilson, J. P., et al. (2025) · Journal of Integrative Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.jia.2025.04.039 · Cited by 3
Incorporating enhanced rock weathering into sustainable forest management
Guo, M., Power, I., Watmough, S. A., Gorgolewski, A., Wallisch, L. M. M., Spence, J., & Wilson, S. (2025) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.127335 · Cited by 3
Agroforestry and enhanced rock weathering: A dual strategy for sustainable cacao
Steeley, I. L., França, E. D. S., Epihov, D. Z., Planavsky, N. J., & Beerling, D. J. (2025) · Plants People Planet · doi:10.1002/ppp3.70097 · Cited by 3
“1 , respectively (Beerling et al., 2020).”
Self-citationMaslouski, M., Ansari, M., Hamburger, S. E., zu Drewer, J. M., Hagemann, N., Eschenbach, A., Beer, C., Becker, J. N., Kammann, C. I., Vorrath, M.-E., et al. (2025) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ae21f6 · Cited by 4
“The applied rate of 56 t ha − 1 for RP lies at the upper end of what is considered agronomically feasible (Dietzen et al 2018, Beerling et al 2020).”
Effects of rock amendment on soil physicochemical properties and organic carbon stabilization
Pihlap, E., Olagaray, N., Klöffel, T., Masters, M. D., D’Ascanio, R., Kantola, I. B., Beerling, D. J., & Planavsky, N. J. (2025) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2025.114232 · Cited by 3
Self-citationZacharias, Q. C., Rioux, R. A., Sun, F., Tatge, W. S., Pihlap, E., Nyavor, E., Foster, D., Warren, J. L., Bradford, M. A., Raymond, P. A., et al. (2026) · Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems · doi:10.1007/s10705-026-10476-2 · Cited by 3
“Farmers are more likely to embrace rock dust applications if they observe clear benefits to soil health or crop productivity (Beerling et al. 2020; Swoboda et al. 2022).”
Shao, Z., Liang, Y., Jo, G., Nakamura, K., & Tsuji, T. (2026) · Advances in Colloid and Interface Science · doi:10.1016/j.cis.2026.103951 · Cited by 4
Comparison of Technologies and Practices for Removing Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere
Fuss, S. (2022) · Royal Society of Chemistry eBooks · doi:10.1039/9781839165245-00351 · Cited by 3
Sun, L., Li, N., Yuan, Y., Wang, Y., & Lu, B. (2023) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology13010025 · Cited by 3
“These resolutions include applying clean energy [4–6], conserving energy and reducing CO 2 emission [7,8], regulating carbon sink in the ecosystems [9–12], and increasing the terrestrial vegetation coverage [13].”
MethodSoil Carbon Sequestration in the Context of Climate Change
Bera, T., Samui, S., Dey, A., & Ankireddypalli, J. K. (2024) · Advances in global change research · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-7935-6_3 · Cited by 3
Chen, L., Luo, Y. M., Tang, J., Zhang, X., Liu, H., Cui, J., Zheng, J., & Dong, X. (2024) · Agricultural Water Management · doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2024.108867 · Cited by 3
Approaches for Capturing Soil Carbon for Sustained Food and Nutritional Security
Patel, R., Kumar, S., Pandey, A. K., Yadav, A., & Padimi, V. (2024) · Sustainability Sciences in Asia and Africa · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-7517-0_2 · Cited by 3
Li, Z., Li, G., Adams, J. M., Guan, D., Zhao, L., Bian, R., Hu, Q., Lu, X., Ji, J., & Chen, J. (2025) · Journal of Earth Science · doi:10.1007/s12583-024-0101-5 · Cited by 3
“For instance, application of basalt to ~50% global croplands could potentially remove 2.0 Gt CO 2 annually (Beerling et al., 2020).”
InfluentialEnhanced rock weathering — A nature-based solution for climate mitigation
Manning, D. A. C. (2025) · Green Energy and Sustainability · doi:10.47248/ges2505020003 · Cited by 6
Enhanced Weathering May Benefit From Co‐Application With Organic Amendments
Almaraz, M. (2025) · AGU Advances · doi:10.1029/2025av001693 · Cited by 3
“Projected global CDR potential for enhanced weathering ranges from 0.5 to 4 Gt CO 2 per year (Beerling et al., 2020; Fuhrman et al., 2023); however, given the lack of field data, many of these estimates are based on either laboratory experiments, which typically overestimate weathering rates (White…”
InfluentialSchaffer, Z. R., Rausis, K., Power, I., & Paulo, C. (2025) · Frontiers in Climate · doi:10.3389/fclim.2025.1592626 · Cited by 3
Four colours of carbon sinks in terrestrial ecosystems
Wang, A., Liu, Z., Kang, R., Lu, X. L., Liang, Y., Quan, Z., Su, C., Wang, Y., Wang, J., Li, F., et al. (2025) · The Innovation Geoscience · doi:10.59717/j.xinn-geo.2025.100162 · Cited by 4
Bacterial communities in soils as indicators of the potential of syenite as an agromineral
Baptista, J. D. C., Gray, N., Tarumoto, M. B., Singleton, I., McCann, C. M., & Manning, D. A. C. (2022) · Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira · doi:10.1590/s1678-3921.pab2022.v57.01414 · Cited by 3
Niu, X., Yu, Y., Dong, J., Ma, Y., Wang, L., Dai, W., & Luan, Y. (2023) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy13030736 · Cited by 3
Li, C., Fan, M., Wang, X., Li, X., Zhao, G., Liu, G., & Zhao, J. (2023) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2023.1164826 · Cited by 3
“It has even been suggested that enhanced weathering would curb present-day anthropogenic carbon emissions (Xu and Liu, 2010; Torres et al., 2016; Strefler et al., 2018; Beerling et al., 2020).”
BackgroundChen, A., Chen, Z., & Lin, B. (2023) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ad085e · Cited by 4
“The derived mathematical model can be used to fit experimental data for kinetic parameters [4, 5] and to theoretically estimate the CDR potential of long-term and large-scale applications [3, 6].”
BackgroundMethodWhitehead, D. C., McNally, S. R., Graham, S. L., Pronger, J., Wall, A. M., Isson, T. T., Beare, M., Tozer, K. N., Doole, G. J., Murray, S., et al. (2024) · Soil Use and Management · doi:10.1111/sum.13113 · Cited by 3
“Recent estimates (Beerling et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 2016) highlight the viability of enhanced rock weathering for CO 2 removal at the global scale (Hartmann et al., 2013; Lehmann & Possinger, 2020; Moosdorf et al., 2014; Renforth, 2012), for cropland (Beerling et al., 2020) and for ecosystems…”
InfluentialAraujo, F. S. M., Chacon, A. G. M., Porto, R. F., Cavalcante, J. P. L., Chiang, Y. W., & Santos, R. M. (2024) · Land · doi:10.3390/land13111839 · Cited by 7
“Despite its potential for carbon sequestration, basalt’s effectiveness as a liming agent is limited, suggesting that its primary benefit in agriculture may lie more in its role in ERW rather than soil pH correction [72].”
Uchibayashi, H., Maruyama, H., Watanabe, T., Hamamoto, S., Toma, Y., Nakao, A., Kurokawa, K., & Shinano, T. (2025) · Soil Science & Plant Nutrition · doi:10.1080/00380768.2024.2448457 · Cited by 3
“In addition, most of previous studies of ERW have been conducted assuming aerobic field condition.”
InfluentialMackintosh, S. P. M. (2021) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003037088 · Cited by 3
Renforth, P. (2023) · Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology · doi:10.1144/qjegh2023-053 · Cited by 1
Self-citationCorrêa, J. D. S., Araújo, D. A. D. O., Rodrigues, A. C. P. S., Brito, O. G., Júnior, G. R. G., & Rodrigues, T. T. M. S. (2025) · Ciência e Agrotecnologia · doi:10.1590/1413-7054202549024124 · Cited by 3
“Furthermore, it is an effective strategy for CO 2 sequestration because it releases cations, which generate alkalinity and convert CO 2 into dissolved inorganic carbon in soil (Beerling et al., 2020; Kelland et al., 2020).”
AI as a Catalyst for Cross‐Disciplinary Breakthroughs in Soil Carbon Sequestration Research
Minasny, B., McBratney, A. B., & Rumpel, C. (2025) · European Journal of Soil Science · doi:10.1111/ejss.70165 · Cited by 3
“Enhancement of natural silicate weathering processes is increasingly studied as valuable solutions to sequester CO 2 (Schuiling and Krijgsman 2006; Taylor et al. 2016; Beerling et al. 2020) with potentially positive effects on MAOC accrual.”
Wollastonite improves soybean yield without toxic trace elements enrichment
Wang, Y., Chen, J., Li, G., Gong, C., Wang, A., Kang, R., Zhu, F., Wang, J., Liu, C., Liu, D., et al. (2025) · Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems · doi:10.1007/s10705-025-10437-1 · Cited by 2
“The positive effects of ERW on soil and crops are the main reason for the current use of silicates in agriculture (Beerling et al. 2020; Vicca et al. 2022).”
McBride, A. L., Skov, K., Wade, P., Betz, J., Stubbs, A. R., Bierowiec, T., Albahri, T., Cazzagon, G., Chen, C., Frew, A., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Climate · doi:10.3389/fclim.2025.1606574 · Cited by 4
Self-citationThe Potential of Gneiss Powder to Enhance Soil Fertility and Crop Nutrition in Agriculture
Holsback, H. M. S., Silva, G. N., Conceição, L. T., Mattos, L. M., Marcante, N. C., França, D. M., Martins, É. D. S., & Santos, E. F. (2025) · Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis · doi:10.1080/00103624.2025.2558196 · Cited by 2
“Research has focused on “enhanced weathering,” which involves utilizing silicate rock powder to capture and store CO 2 (Beerling et al. 2020; Hartmann et al. 2013).”
Li, R., Zhang, Y., Bai, Y., Zhang, X., Zhang, F., Han, X., Sun, H., Zhang, W., Yang, Q., & Wang, S. (2025) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2025.110876 · Cited by 2
Suh, N. N., & Abay, C. (2025) · Agribusiness · doi:10.1002/agr.70039 · Cited by 2
Biogeochemical Pathways of Carbon Biomineralization in Arboreal and Edaphic Systems
Saha, M., Anbukkarasi, K., Jasuja, V., Shamshad, S., & Das, U. (2026) · Land Degradation and Development · doi:10.1002/ldr.70672 · Cited by 2
The importance of radical transparency for responsible carbon dioxide removal
Reinhard, C. T., & Planavsky, N. J. (2026) · npj Climate Action · doi:10.1038/s44168-025-00324-4 · Cited by 2
Interfacial CO2 adsorption in geological carbon cycle
Ren, C., Li, G., & Zhang, K. (2026) · Advances in Colloid and Interface Science · doi:10.1016/j.cis.2026.103807 · Cited by 2
Bardgett, R. D. (2025) · doi:10.1093/9780191858710.001.0001 · Cited by 2
Scaling up enhanced rock weathering for equitable climate change mitigation
Tu, Y., Rafols, R. M., Xu, Y., Butler, N., Ababneh, L. N., Tao, F., Ramanathan, V., Houlton, B. Z., & Liao, C. (2026) · Communications Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s44458-026-00034-w · Cited by 2
“Among the portfolio of CDR options, enhanced rock weathering (ERW) is a promising technique that could not only remove billions of tons of CO 2 from the atmosphere but also improve soil health and crop productivity 2 – 4 .”
InfluentialSustainability analysis of basalt enhanced weathering in China under the carbon neutrality pathway
Chen, X., Wang, X., Jia, X., Wang, S., Tan, R. R., Wang, B., & Wang, F. (2026) · Environmental Impact Assessment Review · doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2026.108396 · Cited by 2
Prospective site-specific life cycle assessment of ocean alkalinity enhancement
Myridinas, M., Fennel, K., Laurent, A., Sacchi, R., Stöckli, A., Treyer, K., Bauer, C., & Pfister, S. (2026) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ae5a4e · Cited by 2
zu Drewer, J. M., Vorrath, M.-E., Amann, T., Hartmann, J., Ansari, M., Pérez, M. C., & Hagemann, N. (2026) · Frontiers in Climate · doi:10.3389/fclim.2026.1853116 · Cited by 2
Agricultural liming is a carbon sink in the Mississippi River Basin
Suhrhoff, T. J., Reinhard, C. T., Kanzaki, Y., Tsao, S. S.-E., Woollen, B. J., Reershemius, T., Shaheen, S. W., Saiers, J. E., Zhang, S., Raymond, P. A., et al. (2026) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-026-11040-2 · Cited by 2
“In acidic soil waters, added alkalinity may only translate into net CDR after solutes are exported and mix with more alkaline downstream waters that can equilibrate with the atmosphere.”
InfluentialMoriarty, P., & Honnery, D. (2022) · SpringerBriefs in energy · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-0767-8_2 · Cited by 2
‘Climate Healing Stones’: Common Minerals Offer Substantial Climate Change Mitigation Potential
Pratt, C., Mahdi, Z., & Hanandeh, A. E. (2024) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-024-01945-x · Cited by 2
“Beerling et al. (2020) reported that the average costs of CO 2 removal using rock weathering approach in USA is about US $160 – 180 per ton, while in European nations and Canada is US$160 – 190 per ton which is about 50% above than those in Mexico, India, Brazil, China, and Indonesia (US $55 – 120…”
BackgroundInfluentialLiang, B., Wei, J., Wu, S., & Hao, H. (2024) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171825 · Cited by 2
How to design cost-effective soil profiles in plastic greenhouses?
Dong, J., Gruda, N. S., Tang, C., Yang, S., Cai, Z., & Fan, Y. (2024) · Vegetable Research · doi:10.48130/vegres-0024-0010 · Cited by 2
Soil management practices can contribute to net carbon neutrality in California
Vittorio, A. D., Simmonds, M., Jones, A. D., Silver, W. L., Houlton, B. Z., Torn, M. S., Almaraz, M., & Nico, P. (2024) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ad4b41 · Cited by 2
“The US contribution was − 0.13 and − 0.42 Gt CO 2 y − 1 , requiring 10% and 55% of cropland area, respectively (Beerling et al 2020).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialImpact of Lime Saturation Factor on Alite-Ye’Elimite Cement Synthesis and Hydration
Li, X., Ma, B., Ji, W., Dou, S., Zhou, H., Zhang, H., Wang, J., Hu, Y., & Shen, X. (2024) · Materials · doi:10.3390/ma17123035 · Cited by 2
Obour, P. B., Dietzen, C., Danso, E. O., Arthur, E., Adu, M. O., & Rosing, M. T. (2024) · European Journal of Soil Science · doi:10.1111/ejss.70028 · Cited by 2
“…years, there has been growing interest in the prospects of using rock dust as an amendment in agricultural systems to address soil factors limiting crop growth and yield (Gunnarsen et al., 2023) and induce carbon removal through the enhanced weathering of silicate minerals (Beerling et al., 2020).”
Zhao, Y., Wang, M., Xuan, J., Chang, D., Li, Z., Wang, S., Ou, Y., Wang, X., & Xing, L. (2025) · Carbon Capture Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.ccst.2025.100363 · Cited by 2
Affinity for OH– Produces Four-Coordinated Zn2+ Impurities in Hydrated Amorphous Calcium Carbonate
Prange, M. P., Boglaienko, D., Mergelsberg, S. T., & Kerisit, S. (2025) · Inorganic Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.inorgchem.4c04525 · Cited by 2
Helmrich, S., Ringsby, A. J., & Maher, K. (2025) · Frontiers in Climate · doi:10.3389/fclim.2025.1505472 · Cited by 2
Riverine photosynthesis influences the carbon sequestration potential of enhanced rock weathering
Neumann, R. B., Kukla, T., Zhang, S., & Butman, D. (2025) · Frontiers in Climate · doi:10.3389/fclim.2025.1582786 · Cited by 5
Assessing biological soil crusts as agents of Ca–Mg silicate dissolution and CO2sequestration
Dorn, R. I. (2021) · Physical Geography · doi:10.1080/02723646.2021.1919379 · Cited by 2
Global Climate Governance in 3D: Mainstreaming Geoengineering Within a Unified Framework
Weil, G. (2022) · University of Pittsburgh Law Review · doi:10.5195/lawreview.2022.863 · Cited by 2
A method to evaluate enhanced rock weathering using intact soil monoliths under field conditions
Zani, C. F., Barneze, A. S., Deyn, G. B. D., Bakker, J. F., Stott, K., & Manning, D. A. C. (2024) · MethodsX · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2024.102971 · Cited by 2
Uncertainty drives carbon ambition, even as deployment potential still at some remove
Broberg, D., Normile, C. P., & Stark, A. K. (2021) · Chem · doi:10.1016/j.chempr.2021.10.011 · Cited by 2
WITHDRAWN: Willingness to pay for a novel carbon label: A choice experiment in the US
Lin, W. T., Nayga, R. M., & Yang, W. (2022) · Energy Economics · doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106304 · Cited by 2
RetractedConstraining carbon loss from rivers following terrestrial enhanced rock weatheringPreprint
Zhang, S., Reinhard, C. T., Liu, S., Kanzaki, Y., & Planavsky, N. J. (2024) · doi:10.22541/essoar.171052489.97497425/v1 · Cited by 2
Microbially-enhanced silicate weathering in agricultural soils to remove carbon dioxidePreprint
Fuenzalida‐Meriz, G. A., Timmermann, T., Wemmer, K. A., Yip, C., Yang, Y., Chowdhury, A., Dores, D. E., Takayama, T., Nademanee, S., Traag, B. A., et al. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4244369/v1 · Cited by 2
Response of Marine Primary Producers to Olivine AdditionsPreprint
Rønning, J., Kofoed, Z. J., Jacobsen, M., & Löscher, C. R. (2024) · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2023-2884 · Cited by 2
Can enhanced alkalinity store carbon durably?
Isson, T. T., & West, A. J. (2026) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adz2620 · Cited by 2
Benefit-cost ratios of carbon dioxide removal strategies
Cael, B. B., Goodwin, P., Pearce, C. R., & Stainforth, D. A. (2023) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/acffdc · Cited by 1
“…CDR strategies primarily focus on the inorganic carbon pool, thus include approaches such as the enhanced weathering of rocks and minerals in agricultural environments, increasing ocean alkalinity, and accelerating carbonate mineralisation within mafic or ultramafic reservoirs [4, 5, 7, 8, 12–14].”
BackgroundSelf-citationJonkman, N. T., Kalbitz, K., Bergsma, H., & Jansen, B. (2023) · Land · doi:10.3390/land12112056 · Cited by 1
Feng, X., 戴, 国., 刘, 婷., 贾, 娟., 朱, 二., 刘, 程., 赵, 云., 王, 亚., 康, 恩., 肖, 军., et al. (2024) · SCIENTIA SINICA Terrae · doi:10.1360/sste-2024-0003 · Cited by 1
Parviainen, A., Beisner, K. R., Blake, J. M., O'Sullivan, E., Miller, C. B., & Rosca, C. (2025) · Geochemistry Exploration Environment Analysis · doi:10.1144/geochem2024-062 · Cited by 1
冯, 孟., Zhang, M., 蔡, 鹏., 李, 心., 朱, 永., & Xiao, K. (2025) · SCIENTIA SINICA Terrae · doi:10.1360/sste-2024-0103 · Cited by 1
Overview of the Mineralosphere and research progress on its environmental effects
Feng, M., Zhang, M., Cai, P., Li, X., Zhu, Y., & Xiao, K. (2025) · Science China Earth Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11430-024-1520-1 · Cited by 1
“Recent studies have found that mineral fertilization significantly enhances soil fertility and increases atmospheric CO 2 sequestration (Beerling et al., 2020).”
Rethinking CO2 Removal Efficiency in Enhanced Rock Weathering
Li, C., Kang, S., & Yongheng, G. (2025) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5c03802 · Cited by 1
Janssens, I., Servotte, T., Calogiuri, T., Mortier, S., Niron, H., Corbett, T. D. W., Poetra, R. P., Rieder, L., Tendeloo, M. V., Singh, A., et al. (2025) · Open Research Europe · doi:10.12688/openreseurope.19252.2 · Cited by 1
Self-citationOguntuyaki, T. A., & Morrill, P. L. (2025) · International journal of greenhouse gas control · doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2025.104444 · Cited by 1
Sun, T., Xiao, K., & Feng, L. (2025) · Climate smart agriculture. · doi:10.1016/j.csag.2025.100072 · Cited by 1
Zhou, Z., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Xue, J., Hua, J., & Yu, C. (2025) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2025.117534 · Cited by 1
Rieder, C., Verrecchia, É. P., Bindschedler, S., Cailleau, G., Rozin, A., Anbarashan, M., Dasgupta, S., Junier, T., Roeschli, N., Vittoz, P., et al. (2025) · Biogeosciences · doi:10.5194/bg-22-6979-2025 · Cited by 1
“Yet, the absence of large differences between the biogeochemical properties of adjacent and control soils still requires explanation.”
Suhrhoff, T. J., Reershemius, T., Jordan, J. S., Li, S., Zhang, S., Milliken, E., Kalderon-Asael, B., Ebert, Y., Nyateka, R., Thompson, J. T., et al. (2025) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5c08303 · Cited by 5
Ibrahim, N., Smith, Z., Zhang, H., Roy, S. C., Islam, S. M., & Arora, B. (2025) · Frontiers in Earth Science · doi:10.3389/feart.2025.1555232 · Cited by 1
“Enhanced weathering (EW) has been suggested as an important approach that can not only remove CO 2 from the atmosphere, but also improve soil health (Beerling et al., 2020; Renforth, 2012; Schuiling, and Krijgsman, 2006).”
Li, D., Liu, G., Wei, X., Wang, X., Zhao, Y., Cao, Y., & Li, Z. (2025) · Advances in Cement Research · doi:10.1680/jadcr.25.00062 · Cited by 1
Xu, Q., Zhang, G., Zhang, F., Bandara, T., Guo, H., Xu, M., & Tang, C. (2025) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-025-08168-x · Cited by 1
Jones, G., Zhang, Z., Clayton, K., Lancastle, L., Paschalis, A., & Waring, B. G. (2025) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5c03699 · Cited by 1
Suo, C., Yu, J., Jiang, M., Wu, L., Ma, Y., & Sun, J. (2025) · Discover Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s43621-025-02409-w · Cited by 1
“By contrast, biochar (BC) is well suited as an early-to-midterm backbone: small unit impacts, a mature supply chain, and synergies with farm management,under sustainable biomass, scope for expansion remains, in line with multiple studies [46].”
Divergent responses of soil carbon dynamics to terracing under natural aridity in semi-arid regions
Mo, S., Wang, Y., Lv, Z., Li, X., He, Y., Xu, P., Zhao, S., Huang, J., Du, X., & Jian, J. (2025) · Soil and Tillage Research · doi:10.1016/j.still.2025.107006 · Cited by 1
An uncertainty-aware framework for solid-phase measurement and verification of enhanced weathering
Rogers, B., & Maher, K. (2026) · Frontiers in Climate · doi:10.3389/fclim.2025.1688361 · Cited by 1
Contribution of dissolved organic carbon to total alkalinity in Enhanced Weathering experiments
Rieder, L., Hagens, M., Poetra, R. P., Vidal, A., Calogiuri, T., Neubeck, A., Singh, A., Corbett, T. D. W., Niron, H., Vicca, S., et al. (2026) · Applied Geochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.apgeochem.2026.106685 · Cited by 4
Self-citationDing, Y., Yan, Z., Wang, H., Mao, Y., Liu, Z., Sardans, J., Fang, C., & Feng, Z. (2026) · Forests · doi:10.3390/f17010144 · Cited by 1
Potential of basalt powder as a soil remineralizer in collard greens production systems
Nascimento, V. R., Silva, A. D. A., Silva, A. D. A., Magalhães, R. D. O., Magela, M. L. M., & Vieira, D. M. D. S. (2025) · Horticultura Brasileira · doi:10.1590/1806-9991-299899 · Cited by 1
A review on geochemical carbon dioxide removal potential of mafic and ultramafic rocks in India
Katre, S., Ravi, K., & Nair, A. M. (2026) · Earth-Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2026.105419 · Cited by 1
Sustainable PFAS Removal from Electronics Wastewater through a Cost-Health Trade-Off Framework
Wang, B., & You, F. (2026) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5c15514 · Cited by 1
Above-ground consumers, soil biota, and ecosystem function
Bardgett, R. D. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780191858710.003.0005 · Cited by 1
Chemical and Mineralogical Classification of Silicate Agrominerals
Martins, É. D. S., Júnior, E. R., Marchi, G., Vilela, G. F., Swoboda, P., Silveira, C. A. P., Martins, E. D. S., Hardoim, P. R., & Theodoro, S. H. (2026) · Frontier studies in soil science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-14656-4_3 · Cited by 1
Assessing urban green roofs for CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering in Europe
Bullock, L. A., Pokharel, R., Lewis, A., Laarhuis, P.-P., van der Luijt, R., Mendez, Q. R., Fuss, S., & Benavente, D. (2026) · Environmental Advances · doi:10.1016/j.envadv.2026.100708 · Cited by 1
Yan, Y., Yin, L., Li, R., Deng, B., Yang, Q., Chen, L., Zhang, Z., Wang, S., & Zhang, W. (2026) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2026.110174 · Cited by 1
Machine learning reveals insufficient carbon capture storage deployment to meet climate goals
Li, X., Sun, Y., Tang, Y., Peng, H., & Duan, H. (2026) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2026.103157 · Cited by 1
Rock Dusts: A Silent Revolution for Soil Nutrition and Climate Protection
Theodoro, S. H., Medeiros, F. D. P., de Carvalho, A. M. X., Oliveira, V. S., Oliveira, L. C., Almeida, R. M. P., Viana, M. B., & Gomide, C. S. (2026) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su18104687 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Beerling, D. J., Kantzas, E. P., Lomas, M. R., Wade, P., Eufrasio, R. M., Renforth, P., Sarkar, B., Andrews, M. G., James, R. H., Pearce, C. R., Mercure, J.-F., Pollitt, H., Holden, P. B., Edwards, N. R., Khanna, M., Koh, L., Quegan, S., Pidgeon, N. F., Janssens, I. A., Hansen, J., & Banwart, S. A.
- Affiliations
- Leverhulme Centre for Climate Change Mitigation (GB)
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- Heriot-Watt University (GB)
- Lancaster University (GB)
- National Oceanography Centre (GB)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- The Open University (GB)
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Cardiff University (GB)
- University of Antwerp (BE)
- Columbia University (US)
- University of Leeds (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Beerling, David J.
- ORCID
- Beerling, David J.
- Kantzas, Euripides P.
- Wade, Peter
- Eufrasio, Rafael M.
- Renforth, Phil
- Sarkar, Binoy
- Andrews, M. Grace
- James, Rachael H.
- Pearce, Christopher R.
- Mercure, Jean-Francois
- Pollitt, Hector
- Holden, Philip B.
- Edwards, Neil R.
- Khanna, Madhu
- Koh, Lenny
- Quegan, Shaun
- Pidgeon, Nick F.
- Janssens, Ivan A.
- Hansen, James
- Banwart, Steven A.
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2020-07-08
- Volume
- 583
- Issue
- 7815
- Pages
- 242-248
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W3041773269
- Semantic Scholar
- 9c00c1ebacb3a72cae19f74c126391c7eb38ebc1
- Cited by
- 700
- References
- 78
- Citations by year
- 2026: 137 · 2025: 144 · 2024: 144 · 2023: 100 · 2022: 94 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 10
- FWCI
- 24.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- eprints.lancs.ac.uk
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (acceptedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) (acceptedVersion)
- Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) (acceptedVersion)
- Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Energy
- UK Research and Innovation
- Leverhulme Trust (RC-2015-029)
- Royal Academy of Engineering
- Universiteit Antwerpen
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/K007254/1)
- Natural Environment Research Council (noc010011, NE/P015093/1, NE/P019943/2, NE/S017119/1, NE/P019730/2, NE/P019943/1)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
- Physical Sciences › Chemical Engineering › Filtration and Separation › Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
- Keywords
- carbon dioxide removal, cropland, techno-economic analysis, climate change mitigation, 2°C target, energy policy scenarios
- MeSH terms
- Agriculture, Atmosphere, Brazil, Carbon Dioxide, China, Goals, India, Iron, Mining, Politics, Probability, Steel, Temperature, Time Factors, United States, Silicates, Crops, Agricultural, Geologic Sediments, Global Warming, Environmental Policy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review