CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 249Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil erosion and sediment transportSoil Management and Crop Yield

Carbon for soils, not soils for carbon

Open access
Moinet, Gabriel Y. K., Hijbeek, Renske, van Vuuren, Detlef P., Giller, Ken E.·2023·Global Change Biology
DOI 10.1111/gcb.16570
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The role of soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration as a ‘win‐win’ solution to both climate change and food insecurity receives an increasing promotion. The opportunity may be too good to be missed! Yet the tremendous complexity of the two issues at stake calls for a detailed and nuanced examination of any potential solution, no matter how appealing. Here, we critically re‐examine the benefits of global SOC sequestration strategies on both climate change mitigation and food production. While estimated contributions of SOC sequestration to climate change vary, almost none take SOC saturation into account. Here, we show that including saturation in estimations decreases any potential contribution of SOC sequestration to climate change mitigation by 53%–81% towards 2100. In addition, reviewing more than 21 meta‐analyses, we found that observed yield effects of increasing SOC are inconsistent, ranging from negative to neutral to positive. We find that the promise of a win‐win outcome is confirmed only when specific land management practices are applied under specific conditions. Therefore, we argue that the existing knowledge base does not justify the current trend to set global agendas focusing first and foremost on SOC sequestration. Away from climate‐smart soils , we need a shift towards soil‐smart agriculture , adaptative and adapted to each local context, and where multiple soil functions are quantified concurrently. Only such comprehensive assessments will allow synergies for land sustainability to be maximised and agronomic requirements for food security to be fulfilled. This implies moving away from global targets for SOC in agricultural soils. SOC sequestration may occur along this pathway and contribute to climate change mitigation and should be regarded as a co‐benefit.

Verified 2026-10-23 · 1 reference not checked yet

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This opinion paper argues that soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration is not a global win–win for climate mitigation and food security, because saturation and non-permanence sharply reduce its mitigation potential and yield effects are highly context-dependent. The authors call for “soil-smart agriculture” rather than global SOC targets, treating SOC sequestration as a possible co-benefit rather than a primary climate solution.

Key findings

  • Including SOC saturation reduces estimated climate mitigation contributions by 53%–81% towards 2100; using Bossio et al. (2020) as a starting rate, 2100 potentials are 257, 121, and 49 Gt CO₂ for constant, slow (30-year half-life), and rapid (10-year half-life) sequestration-rate assumptions, respectively.
  • Across 21 reviewed meta-analyses, yield effects of increasing SOC or organic amendments range from negative to neutral to positive; neutral or negative effects are found much more often when studies correct for N, P, and K supply, while positive effects often occur when NPK supply is included and may not represent long-term persistent SOC.
  • SOC sequestration’s contribution to a 1.5°C pathway is modest: under unlimited potential it ranges from 1.0% (IPCC, 2019) to 23.7% (Lal, 2018); with saturation assumptions it falls to 11.1% and 4.5% for the most optimistic rate, and to 4.0% and 1.6% for the more realistic 3.3 Gt CO₂ year⁻¹ estimate from Bossio et al. (2020); the 0.52 Gt CO₂ year⁻¹ estimate from Janzen et al. (2022) implies 0%–1%.
  • Yield benefits are context-specific: several studies found greater benefits on sandy soils, and Oldfield et al. (2019) found the yield effect of SOC saturates with no further increase beyond approximately 2% SOC content.

Methods

  • Opinion/critical re-examination of terminology, global SOC sequestration estimates, and empirical evidence linking SOC sequestration to crop yields; the paper states that no datasets were generated or analysed.
  • Review of 21 meta-analyses on SOC sequestration or organic amendments and crop yields, classifying studies by response variable, management practice, NPK correction, location, and number of data points.
  • Simple calculations comparing constant versus exponentially decreasing SOC sequestration rates, using 10-year and 30-year decay half-lives, and comparing literature estimates against a 1.5°C carbon budget to 2100.

Limitations

  • Stated: the authors focus on technically achievable SOC sequestration potential and acknowledge that many large social, economic, and political barriers to implementation exist; they focus on plant production as a key soil function while acknowledging other soil functions are also key.
  • Stated: the meta-analysis table classifies some studies as uncertain in some cases because correcting for NPK supply is ambiguous and relative nutrient mineralisation rates of organic amendments vary strongly.
  • Evident from the text: as an opinion/critical review with no new datasets, the saturation calculations are illustrative and depend on selected literature estimates and assumed decay half-lives; the yield synthesis is limited to the reviewed meta-analyses and does not establish a general causal relationship.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gcb.16570

Cites

107 of 110 references verified1 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

28 of 77 cited sources checked · 13 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Interpretationcitation
    § 3.1 | Estimates of global soil organic carbon sequestration potential · p. 3

    Interpreting global SOC sequestration estimates in terms of their climate change mitigation potential is problematic because of well-known limitations.

    “Interpreting global SOC sequestration estimates in terms of their climate change mitigation potential is problematic because of a number of well-­ known limitations as briefly mentioned in the previous section (Baveye et al., 2018; Powlson et al., 2011; Rumpel et al., 2019).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Baveye et al., 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Powlson et al., 2011 source
    • cites Rumpel et al., 2019 source
  • Premisecitation
    § 3.1 | Estimates of global soil organic carbon sequestration potential · p. 3

    The variety of underlying assumptions used to estimate the availability of land area for specific practices contributes greatly to the variability in bottom-up estimates.

    “The variety of underlying assumptions used to estimate the availability of land area for specific practices contributes greatly to this variability (Fuss et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fuss et al., 2018 source
  • Premisecitation
    § 3.2 | Saturation · p. 4

    The rate of SOC sequestration decreases as SOC approaches the maximum or effective storage capacity.

    “Most critically, the concept of sink saturation suggests not only a limited storage capacity but also that the rate of SOC sequestration decreases as SOC approaches the maximum or effective storage capacity (Poulton et al., 2018; Stewart et al., 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Poulton et al., 2018 source
    • cites Stewart et al., 2007 source
  • Findingcitation
    § 3.3 | Non-­ permanence · p. 4

    The more realistic estimate from Bossio et al. (2020) represents 1.2-4.2 years of global emissions.

    “The more realistic estimate from Bossio et al. (2020 ) represents 1.2-­ 4.2 years of global emissions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bossio et al. (2020) source

      The ‘Status of soil carbon as a climate solution’ section reports a global soil-carbon sequestration potential of 2–5 Gt CO₂ per year, so Bossio et al. do provide a relevant estimate. Our copy does not express that estimate as 1.2–4.2 years of global emissions or provide the comparison needed to verify that range; searches for the range and for years-of-emissions comparisons found no such passage. The indexed passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation
    § 3.2 | Saturation · p. 4

    Most studies assume a constant sequestration rate over the defined time period required to reach a new equilibrium.

    “Most studies, however, with one notable exception (namely, Sommer & Bossio, 2014), assume a constant sequestration rate over the defined time period required to reach a new equilibrium (Bossio et al., 2020; Fuss et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bossio et al., 2020 source

      In “Status of soil carbon as a climate solution” (page unavailable), the paper says sequestration rates generally decline after some decades before reaching a new steady state. In “Estimating soil carbon mitigation potential in NCS pathways” (page unavailable), it uses average annual rates for some estimates, but it does not say that most studies assume a constant rate until equilibrium or identify the stated exception. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Fuss et al., 2018 source

      The “Permanence and saturation” section says soil-carbon sequestration is time-limited and approaches a new equilibrium, and notes that potentials are often expressed as per-year values. It does not say that most studies assume a constant rate until equilibrium; instead, it describes the sequestration potential as decreasing toward zero. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims. 37
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 15

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1 | Estimates of global soil organic carbon sequestration potential · p. 3

    Global carbon losses from cultivated soils over the last 12,000 years of human land use are estimated at 116 Gt C (430 Gt CO2), suggesting a global SOC sequestration potential of 285 Gt CO2 under the two-thirds recovery assumption.

    “The most recent estimate (using data-­ driven statistical modelling) puts global C losses at 116 Gt C (430 Gt CO 2 ) over the last 12,000 years of human land use (Sanderman et al., 2017), suggesting a global SOC sequestration potential of 285 Gt CO 2 under the two-­ thirds recovery assumption.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sanderman et al., 2017 source

      The Results and Discussion report a cumulative agricultural land-use loss of approximately 133 Pg C, not 116 Gt C. The same section gives 322 Pg CO2, not 285 Gt CO2, as the potential offset if two-thirds of lost SOC can be recovered. The paper supports the modelling approach and the conditional two-thirds assumption, but states different figures for both estimates. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § 3.1 | Estimates of global soil organic carbon sequestration potential · p. 3

    Depth is inconsistently reported in review papers, potentially combining estimates of sequestration rates that are not directly comparable, which contributes to discrepancies between global estimates.

    “We also observe that depth is inconsistently reported in review papers.”
    • Also stated in: § 3.1 | Estimates of global soil organic carbon sequestration potential · p. 3 · hedged
      “These reviews, therefore, potentially combine estimates of sequestration rates that are not directly comparable (i.e. sequestration rates estimated to a depth of 2 m cannot be averaged directly with sequestration rates estimated to 30 cm depth; Knotters et al.,  2022). This also contributes to the discrepancies between global estimates.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Knotters et al., 2022 source

      Section 4.4 (page unavailable) says sampling depths vary between countries and points to reviews that compare monitoring methods. It does not say that review papers report depth inconsistently, or that combining incomparable sequestration rates contributes to discrepancies between global estimates. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1 | Estimates of global soil organic carbon sequestration potential · p. 3

    Bossio et al. (2020) found a global technical SOC sequestration potential of 3.3 Gt CO2 year-1, far less than previous estimates which did not constrain the available land area.

    “The authors found a global technical SOC sequestration potential of 3.3 Gt CO 2 year -1 , far less than previous estimates which did not constrain the available land area (Fuss et al., 2018), and with greater recognition of the need to use multiple solutions and address multiple objectives concurrently.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bossio et al. (2020) source

      In ‘Soil contribution to Natural Climate Solution Pathways’ (page unavailable), Bossio et al. report 5.5 Gt CO2e per year of soil-carbon mitigation, including 2.2 Gt from avoidable losses; subtracting those losses yields 3.3 Gt for the remaining potential, though the paper does not state that figure directly. ‘Soil science knowledge gaps’ (page unavailable) says its sequestration estimates are lower than Fuss et al.’s, but attributes unconstrained cropland-area availability to Zomer et al., not Fuss et al. The claim conflates those two comparisons. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Fuss et al., 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1 | Estimates of global soil organic carbon sequestration potential · p. 3

    Janzen et al. (2022) estimated a global SOC sequestration potential of around 0.52 Gt CO2 year-1, constrained by photosynthesis.

    “The authors estimated global photosynthetic C inputs and, from this, estimated a global SOC sequestration potential of around 0.52 Gt CO 2 year -1 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Janzen et al. (2022) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 3.3 | Non-­ permanence · p. 4

    SOC remains vulnerable to losses and is sensitive to a range of environmental factors, and this vulnerability remains poorly understood.

    “Although some authors argue that this is realistic (Rumpel et al., 2019), SOC remains vulnerable to losses and is sensitive to a range of environmental factors. This vulnerability remains poorly understood.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rumpel et al., 2019 source

      The citation in the printed sentence is attached to the assertion that the 4p1000 target is realistic, not directly to the subsequent vulnerability statements. The Critiques of the 4P1000 Initiative section describes that target as aspirational and uncertain rather than established as achievable. The Biophysical limits and barriers section does support SOC’s vulnerability to losses and changing conditions, but does not clearly state that this vulnerability remains poorly understood (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.2 | Limitations of response variables used · p. 6

    An increase in agronomic N use efficiency or N recovery would confirm the hypothesis that larger SOC stocks lead to improved soil structure, water holding capacity, or soil quality in general, leading to more plant production per unit N applied.

    “An increase would confirm the hypothesis that larger SOC stocks lead to improved soil structure, water holding capacity, or soil quality in general (although we acknowledge that the term is controversial; Bünemann et al., 2018), leading to more plant production per unit N applied.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bünemann et al., 2018 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.3 | Conflicting evidence · p. 9

    Terrer et al. (2021) showed a trade-off between SOC sequestration and plant biomass production in a meta-analysis of 108 elevated CO2 experiments across forests and grassland ecosystems, most likely due to competition for N between soil and plants.

    “Terrer et al. (2021) showed a trade-­ off between SOC sequestration and plant biomass production in a meta-­ analysis of 108 elevated CO 2 experiments across forests and grassland ecosystems, most likely due to competition for N between soil and plants.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Terrer et al., 2021 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.1 | Establishing causality is problematic · p. 6

    Beneficial effects of biochar on crop yields are mainly observed in tropical acid soils, most likely due to amelioration of aluminium toxicity.

    “Another example is that of biochar, for which beneficial effects on crop yields are mainly observed in tropical acid soils (Jeffery et al., 2017), most likely due to the amelioration of aluminium toxicity (Shetty et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Jeffery et al., 2017 source
    • cites Shetty et al., 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 5 | SOIL-­ SMART AGRICULTURE · p. 11

    Greater scientific knowledge and concurrent management of soil functions will be critical.

    “It is increasingly recognised that greater scientific knowledge and concurrent management of these soil functions will be critical (Kopittke et al., 2022; Schulte et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kopittke et al., 2022 source

      Searches for scientific knowledge, joint management of soil functions, and soil multifunctionality found no relevant passage from the paper’s body. The available matches are bibliographic material and an abstract; under the evidence rule, they cannot establish what the cited paper says about the claim. (LLM, conf=0.65)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Schulte et al., 2014 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 5 | SOIL-­ SMART AGRICULTURE · p. 11

    SOM is central to the numerous functions delivered by soils.

    “Furthermore, SOM is central to the numerous functions delivered by soils (Kopittke et al., 2022).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kopittke et al., 2022 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 5 | SOIL-­ SMART AGRICULTURE · p. 11

    Relationships between the multiple functions of soil are context-specific and numerous trade-offs exist.

    “More generally, relationships between the multiple functions of soil are context-­ specific and numerous trade-­ offs exist (Schulte et al., 2014; Vazquez et al., 2021; Zwetsloot et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Schulte et al., 2014 source
    • cites Vazquez et al., 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Zwetsloot et al., 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § 3.3 | Non-­ permanence · p. 4

    The most optimistic global potential estimate of ca. 454 Gt CO2 represents a little under 12 years of global CO2 emissions at the current rate of 39 Gt CO2 year-1, and 3.5 years under the assumption of a fast decreasing SOC sequestration rate.

    “Following this approach, the most optimistic global potential estimate of ca. 454 Gt CO 2 (Lal, 2018 ) represents a little under 12 years of global CO 2 emissions at the current rate of 39 Gt CO 2 year -1 , and 3.5 years of global CO 2 emissions under our assumption of a fast decreasing SOC sequestration rate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lal, 2018 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 4 | CONTRIBUTION OF SOC SEQUESTRATION TO SOIL FERTILITY AND CROP YIELDS · p. 6

    The response variables used vary among the studies and all have limitations.

    “This exercise led us to three main conclusions, successively elaborated in the following sections: (i) establishing causality between SOC sequestration and crop yield is problematic, (ii) the response variables used vary among the studies and all have limitations, and (iii) the outcomes vary with space, time and methods used.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 21 meta-analyses reviewed are representative of the empirical evidence on SOC sequestration and crop yield.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § 3.3 | Non-­ permanence · p. 5

    Contributions decrease to 11.1% and 4.5% for the most optimistic SOC sequestration rate estimate under the fast and slow assumptions, respectively; and to 4.0% and 1.6% for the more realistic initial SOC sequestration rate.

    “Contributions decrease to 11.1% and 4.5% for the most optimistic SOC sequestration rate estimate (Lal et al., 2018) under the fast and slow assumptions, respectively; and to 4.0% and 1.6% for the more realistic initial SOC sequestration rate (3.3 Gt CO 2 year -1 by Bossio et al., 2020; Figure 1d,e).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lal et al., 2018 source
    • cites Bossio et al., 2020 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 2 | SOC SEQUESTRATION: CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY · p. 2

    A lack of consideration for nitrogen use efficiency is a missed opportunity to strongly reduce the greenhouse gas footprint of agriculture as much as it is a trade-off with SOC sequestration.

    “We, therefore, argue that a lack of consideration for nitrogen use efficiency is a missed opportunity to strongly reduce the greenhouse gas footprint of agriculture as much as it is a trade-­ off with SOC sequestration (Powlson et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Powlson et al., 2011 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2 | SOC SEQUESTRATION: CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY · p. 2

    Agriculture is responsible for approximately 70% of global anthropogenic N2O emissions, largely due to the inefficient use of nitrogen fertilisers.

    “Agriculture is responsible for approximately 70% of global anthropogenic N 2 O emissions (Tian et al., 2020), largely due to the inefficient use of nitrogen fertilisers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tian et al., 2020 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 2 | SOC SEQUESTRATION: CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY · p. 2

    Measuring SOC concentrations does not inform on the quantities of SOC stored in the soil; concentrations need to be converted to stocks.

    “Second, 'measuring SOC' often entails measuring concentrations (in unit mass of C per unit mass of soil), which do not inform on the quantities of SOC stored in the soil. Concentrations need to be converted to stocks (in unit mass of C per unit of land area to a sufficient depth to avoid the effects of soil compaction).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.2 | Saturation · p. 4

    This ranking is misleading and an unfair comparison because the potential of SOC sequestration will decline and reach zero over time, while it will be continued through time for most other options.

    “This is misleading and an unfair comparison because the potential of SOC sequestration will decline and reach zero over time, while it will be continued through time for most other options, including transitioning to non-­ CO 2 emitting energy production.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 3.3 | Non-­ permanence · p. 4

    The large variability in the responses of SOC stocks to soil warming suggests a context-dependent response and a highly uncertain future for newly sequestered SOC, even when best management practices are maintained.

    “The large variability in the responses of SOC stocks to soil warming (van Gestel et al., 2018) suggests a context-­ dependent response and a highly uncertain future for newly sequestered SOC, even when best management practices are maintained.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites van Gestel et al., 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Abstract · p. 1

    SOC sequestration should be regarded as a co-benefit rather than a primary target for climate change mitigation.

    “SOC sequestration may occur along this pathway and contribute to climate change mitigation and should be regarded as a co-­ benefit.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.2 | Saturation · p. 3

    Sink saturation is due to either a finite availability of mineral surfaces and other physico-chemical properties responsible for the persistence of carbon in soils, defining a maximum storage capacity, or to environmental constraints on carbon input stabilisation and decomposition rates leading to a new equilibrium value for SOC and defining an effective storage capacity.

    “This 'sink saturation' is due to either a finite availability of mineral surfaces and other physico-­ chemical properties responsible for the persistence of C in soils, defining a maximum storage capacity, or to environmental constraints on C input stabilisation and decomposition rates leading to a new equilibrium value for SOC and defining an 'effective' storage capacity (Stewart et al.,”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stewart et al., 2007 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 2 | SOC SEQUESTRATION: CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY · p. 2

    SOC stocks measured at a given point in time provide no information on a trend; SOC sequestration involves a dynamic change in SOC stocks that can be quantified only by monitoring the stocks over time or by quantifying the balance between soil carbon uptake and release.

    “First, SOC stocks measured at a given point in time provide no information on a trend-­ SOC sequestration involves a dynamic change in SOC stocks that can be quantified only by monitoring the stocks over time or by quantifying the balance between soil C uptake and release.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § KEYWORDS · p. 2

    A trade-off exists between storing carbon in soils for climate change mitigation and using soil carbon during soil organic matter decomposition for the release of nutrients to support plant production.

    “Yet already more than 15 years ago, Janzen ( 2006) highlighted that a trade-­ off exists between storing C in soils for the benefit of climate change mitigation, and using soil C during soil organic matter (SOM) decomposition for the release of nutrients to support plant production.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Janzen ( 2006) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.3 | Non-­ permanence · p. 5

    This implies a total net reduction in emissions of around 3000 Gt CO2.

    “This implies a total net reduction in emissions of around 3000 Gt CO 2 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.1 | Establishing causality is problematic · p. 6

    Larger crop yields may lead to increased biomass inputs to the soil through crop residues, roots and stubble, and may therefore positively affect the soil C balance.

    “larger crop yields may lead to increased biomass inputs to the soil, through crop residues, roots and stubble, and may therefore positively affect the soil C balance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 5 | SOIL-­ SMART AGRICULTURE · p. 10

    Clay soils have the largest potential to store SOC, and depleted clay soils offer the greatest opportunity to increase SOC stocks.

    “As discussed, clay soils have the largest potential to store SOC, and those that are depleted offer the greatest opportunity to increase SOC stocks (Angers et al., 2011; Kirschbaum et al., 2020; McNally et al., 2017)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Angers et al., 2011 source
    • cites Kirschbaum et al., 2020

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites McNally et al., 2017 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 4.3 | Conflicting evidence · p. 9

    Increasing SOC stocks does not always increase crop yields, and can also negatively affect them.

    “In short, increasing SOC stocks does not always increase crop yields, and can also negatively affect them.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 3.3 | Non-­ permanence · p. 4

    SOC sequestration cannot substitute emission reductions, even temporarily, nor does it delay the need for immediate and aggressive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions if we are to keep global warming under 1.5 or well-below 2°C.

    “SOC sequestration cannot substitute emission reductions, even temporarily, nor does it delay the need for immediate and aggressive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions if we are to keep global warming under 1.5 or well-­ below 2°C (Anderson et al., 2019).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Anderson et al., 2019 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.3 | Conflicting evidence · p. 9

    Oelofse et al. (2015) found unclear effects across eight soil types, with borderline positive effects on coarse sandy loam and fine sandy clay loam soils but negative effects on fine sandy soils.

    “Only one study (Oelofse et al., 2015) found unclear effects across eight soil types, with borderline positive effects on coarse sandy loam and fine sandy clay loam soils but negative effects on fine sandy soils.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Oelofse et al., 2015 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5 | SOIL-­ SMART AGRICULTURE · p. 10

    The climate mitigation potential of SOC sequestration is modest, at best, on a global scale, and context-specific.

    “Two key points emerge from our review: (i) the climate mitigation potential of SOC sequestration is modest, at best, on a global scale, and context-­ specific”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.3 | Conflicting evidence · p. 9

    Chen et al. (2018) found a positive yield effect in tropical climates, with no significant yield differences in the final experimental year in subtropical and continental climate zones.

    “Using the same data selection, the authors also found a positive yield effect in tropical climates, with no significant yield differences in the final experimental year in the other climate zones (subtropical and continental).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chen et al., 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.2 | Limitations of response variables used · p. 9

    When experimental treatments receive sufficient P and K application, a change in agronomic N use efficiency is representative of the long-term effect of SOC on crop yield.

    “When experimental treatments receive sufficient P and K application, a change in agronomic N use efficiency is also representative of the long-­ term effect of SOC on crop yield.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5 | SOIL-­ SMART AGRICULTURE · p. 10

    Correlations between SOC sequestration and crop yield are strongly context dependent and it is highly uncertain whether a causal link exists.

    “and (ii) correlations between SOC sequestration and crop yield are strongly context dependent and it is highly uncertain whether a causal link exists.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.1 | Establishing causality is problematic · p. 6

    Cultivation of a cover crop can increase SOC stocks and, at the same time, can reduce N losses, thereby increasing soil N supply and possibly crop yields.

    “For example, cultivation of a cover crop can increase SOC stocks and, at the same time, can reduce N losses, thereby increasing soil N supply and possibly crop yields (Thapa et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Thapa et al., 2018 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.2 | Limitations of response variables used · p. 9

    The approach of correcting for NPK effects is ambiguous because a control treatment with equal NPK supply from mineral fertiliser is required, while relative nutrient mineralisation rates of organic amendments vary strongly with the quality of the amendment and across locations.

    “At the same time, the authors acknowledged that this approach is ambiguous as a control treatment with equal NPK supply from mineral fertiliser is required, while relative nutrient mineralisation rates of organic amendments vary strongly with the quality of the amendment and across locations (Schröder, 2005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Schröder, 2005 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.2 | Limitations of response variables used · p. 6

    The composition of soil organic matter changes over time, which complicates assessing the contribution of SOC sequestration to crop yields.

    “An additional complication that arises when assessing the contribution of SOC sequestration to crop yields is the composition of SOM, which changes over time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.3 | Conflicting evidence · p. 9

    Hijbeek et al. (2017) found no overall yield effects of organic amendments, but attainable crop yields were increased on soils with smaller clay content (an additional 0.13% increase in attainable yields when using organic amendments for 1% less clay particles).

    “Similarly, whereas Hijbeek et al. (2017) found no overall yield effects of organic amendments, attainable crop yields were increased on soils with smaller clay content (an additional 0.13% increase in attainable yields when using organic amendments for 1% less clay particles).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hijbeek et al., 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.1 | Establishing causality is problematic · p. 6

    Correlating crop yields to a change in SOC stocks over time in the same location is not subject to confounding environmental factors but has other limitations.

    “is not subject to such confounding environmental factors but has other limitations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5 | SOIL-­ SMART AGRICULTURE · p. 11

    Including SOC sequestration in the narrative of global climate change mitigation is ill-suited.

    “We argue that including SOC sequestration in the narrative of global climate change mitigation is ill-­ suited and we call for a soil-­ smart approach, which will not always be 'climate-­ smart'.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Additional land needed to maintain food production constant leads to more deforestation or less reforestation and therefore SOC and above-ground C losses elsewhere.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5 | SOIL-­ SMART AGRICULTURE · p. 11

    SOC sequestration is one of many approaches, one small piece of a very large puzzle.

    “SOC sequestration is indeed one of many approaches, one small piece of a very large puzzle, and it should be treated as such.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 5 | SOIL-­ SMART AGRICULTURE · p. 11

    Soils have a critical role to play, and SOM, with the carbon it contains, is fundamental to maintaining soil fertility and supporting plant production.

    “Without a doubt, soils have a critical role to play, and SOM, with the carbon it contains, is fundamental to maintaining soil fertility and supporting plant production.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5 | SOIL-­ SMART AGRICULTURE · p. 11

    SOC sequestration is not up to the challenge of ensuring food security in a changing climate, let alone other sustainable development goals.

    “We conclude that, if we are to ensure food security in a changing climate, let alone other sustainable development goals, SOC sequestration is simply not up to the challenge.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5 | SOIL-­ SMART AGRICULTURE · p. 10

    Reciprocal transfer of residues from clay to sandy soil leads to large CO2 emissions in clay soil and small SOC sequestration in the sandy soil, with an overall SOC loss and aggravated climate change.

    “and large CO 2 emissions in clay soil and small SOC sequestration in the sandy soil with an overall SOC loss and aggravated climate change”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5 | SOIL-­ SMART AGRICULTURE · p. 10

    Reciprocal transfer of residues from clay to sandy soil leads to small yield loss in the clay soil and high yield gain in the sandy soil.

    “The reciprocal transfer, in panel b, leads to mirrored effects: Small yield loss in the clay soil and high yield gain in the sandy soil”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 5 | SOIL-­ SMART AGRICULTURE · p. 10

    The net overall effect of transferring residues from sandy to clay soil is that C is sequestered, to the benefit of climate.

    “Therefore the net overall effect is that C is sequestered, to the benefit of climate (provided that no additional N 2 O or CH 4 emissions would arise).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: No additional N2O or CH4 emissions would arise from the residue transfer scenarios.
45 of 45

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Crops do not take up carbon from the soil.

    “Crops do not take up C from the soil.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 21 meta-analyses reviewed are representative of the empirical evidence on SOC sequestration and crop yield.

    “we reviewed 21 of those meta-­ analyses, the methods they employed, the outcomes, the validity and the limitations of the studies (Table 1).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Each field is owned by a different farmer.

    “assuming that each field is owned by a different farmer, someone always loses.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    No additional N2O or CH4 emissions would arise from the residue transfer scenarios.

    “provided that no additional N 2 O or CH 4 emissions would arise”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Additional land needed to maintain food production constant leads to more deforestation or less reforestation and therefore SOC and above-ground C losses elsewhere.

    “leading to more deforestation or less reforestation and therefore SOC and above-­ ground C losses elsewhere.”
5 of 5

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?

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.

  • Fast and slow saturation scenarios are reversed in the reported contributions

    Minor

    The paper says the slowly decreasing rate yields more sequestration than the rapidly decreasing rate by 2100. Later, it assigns the larger mitigation contribution to the fast scenario for both initial-rate estimates; the fast and slow labels appear reversed.

  • Abstract and main text disagree on the number of meta-analyses reviewed

    Minor

    The abstract says more than 21 meta-analyses were reviewed, whereas the main text says the review covered 21.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Schjønning P., 2018, Advances in agronomy, 35

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Moinet, G. Y. K., Hijbeek, R., van Vuuren, D. P., & Giller, K. E.
Affiliations
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency The Hague The Netherlands
Corresponding author
Moinet, Gabriel Y. K.
ORCID
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-01-16
Volume
29
Issue
9
Pages
2384-2398
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
DOI
10.1111/gcb.16570
OpenAlex
W4316464889
Semantic Scholar
d2ad76b8d1664817efc1ae9a4f9cfd818cdd139d
Cited by
249
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 93 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 34
FWCI
35.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Global Change Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Wageningen University and Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
Keywords
soil organic carbon sequestration, climate change mitigation, food security, soil carbon saturation, land management practices, soil functions, land sustainability
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Carbon, Food, Soil, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Carbon Sequestration

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by 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