Running Head: CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION

Faith Haney

Ms. Leila Chawkat

Intern/Mentor Program Period 6

Dr. Chiara D’Amore, President of the Community Ecology Institute

The Community Ecology Center

29 March 2020

Cultivation for Mitigation: The Return of Victory Gardens to Fight the War on Climate
Change

Abstract

Current land use methods are a major contributor to global warming, accounting for

roughly 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Chambers et al. 2016). Reducing emissions in

this sector is crucial to climate change mitigation, particularly through the implementation of

sustainable agricultural practices that enhance carbon sequestration. This paper will discuss one

way to encourage the use of these practices on the individual and local level, which is to plant

Climate Victory Gardens. In order to assess the effectiveness of this potential solution, data will

be gathered on various measurements of soil quality from the Climate Victory Garden using a

soil testing kit. The results of the soil tests will reveal the quality of the garden’s soil. Results that

show that the soil is in good health indicate that the soil has a greater carbon sequestration

capacity. Additionally, the types of practices used in the garden will be recorded, and the

garden’s overall progress will be documented with pictures. The Climate Victory Garden is a

promising step forward on the path to reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and

ultimately attaining the negative emissions required to prevent catastrophic global warming.
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 2
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 3

Table of Contents

Abstract 1
I. Introduction 4
II. Literature Review 5
A. Soil Quality 5
B. No-till Farming 6
C. Plant Selection 7
D. Organic Farming 9
E. Locally Produced Food 10
F. Soil Amendments 11
III. Data Collection 12
A. Rationale 12
1. Background 12
2. Research Questions 12
3. Research Hypothesis 13
4. Research Design Model 13
5. Data Collection Methods 14
B. Results and Analysis of the Data 15
1. Results 15
2. Analysis 18
3. Data Collection Conclusion 20
IV. Conclusion 21
References 23
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 4

I. Introduction

According to the 2019 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Emissions Gap

Report, 121,915,630,988,237.3 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) were released into

the Earth’s atmosphere in 2018 alone. These greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to

global warming, are continuing to rise at a rate of 1.5% per year. Even if humans achieved net

zero greenhouse gas emissions, it still would not be sufficient to prevent the average global

temperature from increasing 2℃, which is the threshold for catastrophic global warming. In fact,

scientists have determined that in order to remain under this threshold, “negative CO2 emissions

in some sectors and geographical locations are required” (Schleussner et al., 2016). While

companies around the world are researching bioenergy and carbon capture and storage

technologies, these solutions are expensive, and their short-term and long-term effectiveness is

uncertain. Therefore, the world should look towards the different emissions sectors (for example,

agriculture, transportation, fossil fuel industries) and develop inexpensive and effective solutions

within these areas.

Current land use methods are a major contributor to global warming, accounting for

roughly 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Chambers et al. 2016). Reducing emissions in

this sector is crucial to climate change mitigation, particularly through the implementation of

sustainable agricultural practices that enhance carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration is the

process by which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and stored elsewhere, such as

in the soil. According to Yang et al., global cultivation has resulted in a loss of about 133

gigatonnes of soil carbon since the beginning of agriculture (2019). Therefore, enhancing carbon

sequestration in agricultural lands is essential to offsetting carbon emissions and eventually

reaching negative net emissions. In order to accomplish this, there must be a global effort to
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 5

implement sustainable agricultural practices such as no-till or conservation tillage, planting

perennial crops, increasing biodiversity, organic farming, and incorporating native plants.

This paper will discuss one way to encourage the use of these practices on the individual

and local level, namely, planting Climate Victory Gardens. Climate Victory Gardens are

modelled after the original Victory Garden movement during World Wars I and II where the

U.S. Government urged Americans to grow their own food at home to conserve rations for

troops overseas. These Victory Gardens became quite popular, and, by 1944, there were over 20

million planted across the nation (Green America). Like the original Victory Gardens, Climate

Victory Gardens are grown by individuals or small communities to support a greater cause:

combating global warming. Climate Victory Gardens can be a key tool in mitigating climate

change through the use of sustainable agricultural practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions

and enhance carbon sequestration.

II. Literature Review

In this section, background information and prior research are highlighted as a foundation

for understanding the benefit of and science behind Climate Victory Gardens.

A. Soil Quality

To increase soil carbon sequestration rates, the first and most important step is improving

soil quality. Higher quality soil allows for sequestering a greater amount of carbon before

succumbing to soil saturation. Saturation occurs when the soil reaches its capacity of carbon

sequestration and becomes a source of carbon, meaning it releases more carbon than it

accumulates. This state is in contrast to that of a carbon sink, in which soil accumulates more

carbon than it releases (Kane, 2015). Agricultural practices that boost soil health not only

increase soil carbon, but also result in many other environmental benefits, such as enhancing
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 6

water retention and lowering overall greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (United States

Climate Alliance, 2018). Aside from positively impacting the environment, improvements in soil

quality have also been linked to various other social and economic benefits. For example, soil

scientist Rattan Lal notes that “Soil quality is a strong determinant of agronomic yield,” and that

“systems that enhance soil quality… also improve and sustain productivity” (2015). Therefore, it

is in the best interest of both the people and the planet to implement agricultural practices that

promote sustainability and foster the health of the soil.

B. No-till Farming

One sustainable agricultural practice utilized in the Climate Victory Garden is no-till

farming, in which the soil is left undisturbed by tools or machinery, such as plows. Conventional

tillage systems that are currently used on most farms today are detrimental to the soil’s ability to

sequester carbon. By routinely disturbing and degrading the top layer of soil, “conventional

tillage makes the soil serve as a source rather than a sink of atmospheric pollutants” (Busari et

al., 2015). In fact, a study by Pezzoulo et al. found that soil organic carbon oxidation rates under

no-tillage are five times slower than under conventional tillage regimes, and the high oxidation

rates that result from conventional tillage lead to the release of large amounts of CO2 into the

atmosphere (2017). The increased greenhouse gas emissions associated with conventional tillage

are not only the result of high oxidation rates, but they are also impacted by emissions from the

machinery used in the tilling process. A study by Adewale et al. aimed at identifying hotspots of

carbon emissions on a small organic farm determined that the operations used in tillage were the

highest contributors to the farm’s carbon footprint, accounting for 31.6% of carbon emissions

(2016). The authors concluded that most of the tillage carbon footprint was due to fuel use

(Adewale et al., 2016). In contrast, the Climate Victory Garden utilizes a no-till system, which is
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 7

less emissions-intense and better at preserving the health of the soil. Studies have concluded that

refraining from traditional tilling methods “can increase soil carbon rapidly, especially at the soil

surface” because “soil aggregates remain intact, physically protecting carbon” (Kane, 2015).

Additionally, a reduction in tillage has been proven to be beneficial in terms of water

conservation and soil erosion control, therefore reducing the need for irrigation and the negative

impacts of erosion on crops (Krauss et al., 2017). While tilling has been shown to damage soil

and cause environmental harm, practicing no-till is a sustainable and practical solution.

C. Plant Selection

Careful selection of plants in the Climate Victory Garden can also have a positive

environmental impact. One beneficial agricultural practice utilized in a Climate Victory Garden

is planting perennials. Perennial plants are key components to enhancing carbon sequestration.

As opposed to annual plants, perennials “rely on more extensive roots systems to ensure

longevity [and] they likely produce more belowground biomass” (Kane, 2015). Deeper and

longer roots allow perennials to store more carbon in the soil, thus increasing the soil’s carbon

sequestration rate. Furthermore, according to a paper by Eric Toensmeier, perennials have been

shown to increase soil organic matter, improve soil fertility and water cycling, reduce runoff, be

more resistant to droughts or other extreme weather events, require less fossil fuel inputs, and

experience erosion and nitrogen leaching rates of less than 5% of those in annual crops (2017).

The carbon sequestration benefits and additional ecosystem services provided by planting

perennials make it a simple yet impactful way to improve soil quality and decrease net

greenhouse gas emissions.

Across the current agricultural sector, monocultures, in which only one type of crop is

cultivated within an area, are becoming more and more prevalent. However, increasing
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 8

agricultural biodiversity has been proven to not only positively impact the environment, but also

to be more economically appealing. Researchers have found that implementing more diverse

crop rotations increases soil carbon stocks and soil microbial biomass as compared with less

diverse systems, such as monocultures (Kane, 2015). In fact, soil organic carbon stocks are on

average “8% higher in species mixtures than in monocultures,” and the positive effects of

biodiversity on carbon sequestration and plant productivity increase over time (X. Chen et al.,

2019). The way in which high plant diversity enhances carbon sequestration is by increasing

belowground carbon inputs through greater plant mass as well as enhancing soil microbial

community diversity and activity, allowing for the suppression of carbon losses from

decomposition (S. Chen et al., 2018). While much cropland around the world currently suffers

from degradation as the result of damaging agricultural practices, restoring this land by

encouraging biodiversity can yield tremendous environmentally beneficial changes. For

example, a study by Yang et al. determined that restoring biodiversity in grasslands can be a

crucial component to mitigating carbon emissions, reporting that in an experiment in which

abandoned grasslands were restored with different levels of diversity that “the highest diversity

treatment stored 178% more carbon in the soil than did the monocultures” (2019). In addition to

the sustainability aspect, increasing biodiversity can also be a profitable endeavor. For instance, a

study by Ponisio et al. revealed that diversification practices such as multi-cropping and crop

rotations can improve crop yields in organic systems (2015). Improvements in yields allow

growers to sell more crops and consumers to purchase these crops at cheaper prices.

Furthermore, encouraging biodiversity is an inexpensive practice in itself, requiring few

additional materials and inputs. Therefore, biodiversity is both a sustainable and economically

feasible option.
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 9

The use of cover crops in Climate Victory Gardens is also an important sustainable

agricultural practice for climate change mitigation. Cover crops are crops that are planted to

cover, protect, and enrich the soil. Studies have found that when incorporated into an agricultural

system, “extensive use of cover crops led to a significant increase in soil carbon” (Kane, 2015).

Because these crops are laid on top of the soil, they are able to trap carbon and other greenhouse

gases in the soil and prevent them from escaping into the atmosphere and contributing to global

warming. Furthermore, this practice has been shown to have a greater impact and be effective for

longer than other practices. As opposed to other soil carbon preservation methods, “a large part

of the carbon input from cover crops is added as roots, which was found to contribute more

effectively to the relatively stable carbon pool than aboveground carbon input,” and the carbon

sequestration from cover crops could last for more than 100 years (Poeplau & Don, 2015). The

promising research concerning the effectiveness of cover crops and the time span of their effects

points towards the usefulness of this practice in sustainable agriculture.

D. Organic Farming

In an effort to maintain a healthy ecosystem, plants grown in the Climate Victory Garden

are organic, meaning no pesticides, herbicides, synthetic fertilizers, or other chemicals are used.

Various studies have concluded that organic farming is a more environmentally friendly

agricultural practice as opposed to conventional farming that utilizes synthetic chemicals. The

use of these dangerous chemicals in agriculture can result in a decline in soil carbon

sequestration and storage, as “plants that receive [chemical fertilizer] do not need as extensive

root systems to mine for nutrients” (Kane, 2015). As a result, there is less belowground biomass,

which is needed to enrich the soil and store carbon. In contrast, organic agriculture increases

biodiversity of flora and fauna by 30% and 50%, respectively, and reduces nitrogen leaches by
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 10

65% as compared with non-organic farms (Niggli, 2015). Studies have also shown that organic

farming improves soil fertility, which in turn enhances carbon sequestration and organic matter

content. The environmental and ecological benefits of omitting chemicals in agriculture make

organic farming yet another sustainable and easily-implemented practice in the garden.

E. Locally Produced Food

An essential component of the Climate Victory Garden’s reduction in greenhouse gas

emissions is the practice of locally producing food instead of importing it. Local production of

food provides environmental, social, and economic benefits “by lowering costs of production,

shortening food miles, boosting local economies, and providing foods that are fresher and more

nutritious for customers” (Shelef et al., 2017). In terms of sustainability, local food production

reduces the greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint of agriculture. A study by Michalsky

& Hooda on greenhouse gas emissions of imported and locally produced produce in the United

Kingdom found that imported fruits and vegetables “contain embedded [greenhouse gas]

emissions of 10.16 kg CO2e/kg. This is 9.66 kg more CO2e emissions compared to a kilogram of

these commodities produced and supplied locally” (2015). These authors also determined that a

major contributor to carbon emissions of imported foods is fuel used to air freight them long

distances. ‘Food mile’ is a term used to refer to the distance it takes to transport an item of food

from the field where it was grown to the person who consumes it. Food miles from items

transported long distances often result in a substantial amount of greenhouse gases. Therefore,

growing food in the Climate Victory Garden, especially in a heavily populated urban area, can

reduce the distance needed to transport food from the grower to the consumer, resulting in less

transportation-related greenhouse gases.

CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 11

F. Soil Amendments

The use of certain soil amendments, such as biosolids, as compost may be yet another

sustainable practice that can be implemented in the Climate Victory Garden. Biosolids are an

organic product derived from sewage and wastewater treatment. In an experiment conducted by

Del Mar Montiel‐Rozas et al. to determine how the application of biosolids in urban agriculture

affects soil physical and chemical properties, the researchers found that the addition of biosolids

“stimulates the activity of the microbial community and promotes a higher vegetative cover,

which improves soil quality” (2016). Furthermore, this experiment found that biosolids not only

increased soil fertility, but they also increased the soil’s carbon sequestration rate (Del Mar

Montiel‐Rozas et al., 2016). In fact, one study by Wijesekara et al. reported that the application

of biosolids resulted in an increase in soil organic carbon of more than 45% (2017). These

promising studies reveal that utilizing green waste as compost can have major positive effects on

soil quality and, in turn, the soil’s ability to sequester carbon. Therefore, this practice will be

implemented in CEI’s Climate Victory Garden and observed to determine its effects on the soil

properties, including carbon storage.

III. Data Collection

This section describes the rationale of the methodology, data collection results, and
analysis.

A. Rationale

1. Background

The use of agricultural practices that enhance soil quality and carbon sequestration are a

simple, inexpensive, and efficient way to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and work towards

negative emissions. These practices can be implemented on an individual and local level by
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 12

people with gardens or cropland. Therefore, it is important to know which agricultural practices

are actually effective at improving soil quality and, in turn, enhancing carbon sequestration. The

Climate Victory Garden already utilizes several sustainable practices, but this research will

determine whether composting should also be incorporated in the garden in order to improve soil

quality, and, if so, whether the compost should be placed on top of the soil or mixed in.

Expert research shows that composting using either traditional compost, or in this case

biosolids, contributes to the carbon sequestration process by adding organic matter to the soil,

which leads to a long-term increase in soil organic carbon and a reduction in the rate at which

organic matter is depleted from the soil (Sage Publications, 2008). This research will further

investigate the effects of composting on soil quality and include differences between the

application of biosolid soil amendment on top of the soil as opposed to compost that is mixed

into the soil.

2. Research Questions

The research aims to answer the following questions:

● Does composting produce victory garden soil that is more conducive to carbon

sequestration?

● If so, which composting method, mixed in or on top of soil, is more effective?

Note that these questions for the experiment address a subset of my overall research

question: How can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an inexpensive and effective way on

an individual and/ or local level?

3. Research Hypothesis

The following is the research hypothesis: Adding compost in the form of biosolids will

improve the soil quality in such a way that is more conducive to carbon sequestration by
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 13

increasing the organic matter content. Furthermore, the biosolids that are mixed into the soil will

be more effective at improving soil quality because the compost nutrients will sink more into the

soil than those in the biosolids on top.

4. Research Design Model

Quantitative research was conducted with an experimental design model. Three areas of

the garden were sectioned off, and in each one a different composting method was implemented

(see Fig. 1). The soil quality of the three different sections of the garden were measured through

soil tests, which provide numerical data that quantifies soil quality. For example, the percent of

organic matter in the soil is reported in the tests. This data point can provide a rough estimate of

carbon in the soil, as carbon generally makes up around 58% of the soil’s organic matter,

depending on the garden.

While this was an experiment, it is important to note that not all variables were controlled

for. Because the land was under previous ownership, not everything that has been done to the

garden recently and over the years is known. Furthermore, there will always be natural variation

between the sections due to the fact that the flora and fauna will not be exactly the same, the

specific locations are slightly different, and factors such as the different amount of sunlight each

section received may have affected the results. However, the conditions each section endured

throughout the experiment were controlled as much as possible.

In this experiment, the independent variable was the composting method in each section.

As shown in Fig. 1, section “N Center 1” had biosolid compost placed on top of the soil, “N

Center 2” was the control (no compost applied), and “N Center 3” had biosolid compost mixed

into the soil (the first 4-6 inches). The dependent variable was the soil quality of each section, as

indicated by the soil test results.

CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 14

Figure 1. Garden sections and treatments

5. Data Collection Methods

Soil samples were taken from three sections in their natural state (before any compost

was applied) as a winter baseline on January 24, 2020. The soil samples were collected

according to the guidelines established in the procedures for collecting soil samples published by

the University of Delaware (Parker, 2007). These procedures include taking at least four samples

in each plot at a minimum depth of eight inches. Different shovels and buckets were used for

each plot to prevent contamination. The exact areas where each sample was taken were marked

by a small stake or other marker. The samples were sent to the University of Delaware Soil

Testing Laboratory to test for the following nutrients: pH, lime requirement, organic matter, and

Mehlich 3 extractable nutrients [Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K), Calcium(Ca), Magnesium (Mg),

Manganese (Mn), Zinc (Zn), Copper (Cu), Iron (Fe), Boron (B), Sulfur (S) and Aluminum (Al)].

The numerical quantities of different nutrients, minerals, and soil characteristics were compared

to optimal levels in order to determine the quality of the soil.

Then, a biosolid amendment was applied on top of the soil in section N Center 1 and

mixed into the soil of the N Center 3 section. The amendment was not applied to the N Center 2

section, which was the control to which the other two sections were compared to. On March 1,

2020 (about five weeks after the first sample), soil samples were taken from each section and
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 15

sent to the University of Delaware for testing. The results of each section were compared to see

if and how soil quality improved among the sections.

B. Results and Analysis of the Data

1. Results

Fig. 2-7 show portions of the soil test reports from the University of Delaware Soil

Testing Laboratory. In addition to reporting values, the reports provided information on whether

various nutrients are in the low, medium, or optimum ranges.

In this paper, the focus will be on those items most indicative of soil health with respect

to potential for carbon sequestration. The items of interest include: % organic matter (results

shown in Fig. 8), pH (Fig. 9), Potassium (Fig. 10), Phosphorus (Fig. 11), Magnesium (Fig. 12),

and Calcium (Fig. 13).

Figure 2. N Center 1 soil test results 01/24/2020 (Test 1)

CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 16

Figure 3. N Center 1 soil test results 03/01/2020 (Test 2)

Figure 4. N Center 2 soil test results 01/24/2020 (Test 1)

Figure 5. N Center 2 soil test results 03/01/2020 (Test 2)

CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 17

Figure 6. N Center 3 soil test results 01/24/2020 (Test 1)

Figure 7. N Center 3 soil test results 03/01/2020 (Test 2)

Figure 8. Organic matter - Tests 1 and 2 Figure 9. pH levels - Tests 1 and 2

CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 18

Figure 10. Potassium - Tests 1 and 2 Figure 11. Phosphorus - Tests 1 and 2

Figure 12. Magnesium - Tests 1 and 2 Figure 13. Calcium - Tests 1 and 2

2. Analysis

The results of the soil tests reveal that the addition of biosolids to plots N Center 1 and N

Center 3 had a positive impact on overall soil quality, while the soil quality for the control, N

Center 2, declined for the most part during the five weeks. In particular, mixing the biosolid

amendment into the first layer of soil, as was done in N Center 1, had the greatest positive

impact. To begin with, the organic matter content increased the most in N Center 1, from 2.8% to

6.9% for an increase of 4.1%. In N Center 3, the organic matter increased by a smaller margin of

1.3%, from 2.8% to 4.1%. Even though N Center 2 had the highest organic matter content to

begin with at 4.1%, the organic matter in this plot actually decreased over the time period and

had the lowest percentage for the second soil test at only 3.6%, a decrease of 0.5%. Because

roughly 58% of organic matter consists of carbon, these results suggest that the N Center 1 plot

stored the greatest amount of carbon, while the control plot stored the least. Therefore, the
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 19

increase in organic matter in the biosolid amended plots, especially the plot with the amendment

mixed into the top layer of soil, reveals that the addition of the biosolid compost increased the

soil’s ability to store and sequester carbon.

In terms of other aspects of soil quality, the biosolid amendment also seemed to have

positive effects. For example, the baseline pH for all three plots was 7.2, verging on being

excessively high. The pH continued to climb in the control plot, reaching an excessive 7.4 after

the five weeks. In contrast, the addition of biosolids to the other two plots helped to lower the

pH. In N Center 1, the final pH was 7.1, while the pH dropped to 6.8 for N Center 3, which is

well into the optimum zone.

Another indicator of soil health that improved in the biosolid amended plots is the level

of potassium. The index value of potassium for N Center 1 increased by 25, from 65 (at the low

end of optimum) to 90 (at the higher end of optimum). In N Center 3, there was an even greater

increase in potassium of 34, from 33 to 67, which is situated at the lower end of the optimum

range. However, the potassium level remained around the same with a slight decrease from 34 to

33 in the unamended plot. Lastly, in the N Center 3 plot alone, the index value for phosphorus

rose by 28, from a low-to-medium value of 46 to an optimum value of 74. This did not occur in

the N Center 1 plot, in which the level of phosphorus remained roughly the same, or the N

Center 2 plot, in which the level of phosphorus decreased.

The application of the biosolids also increased magnesium and calcium levels in the soil.

As a result, magnesium levels were pushed into the “excessive” zone, and calcium levels, having

already been considered “excessive”, continued to increase for N Center 1 and 3. While this may

seem alarming, research shows that magnesium excess has no direct effect on plant production,

but it can cause deficiencies in other nutrients, such as calcium (Rempe, 2017). As the levels for
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 20

calcium in the soil are already too high, a higher amount of magnesium is actually beneficial in

order to inhibit some of the absorption of calcium to balance out the nutrients in the soil.

However, the long-term effects of the high levels of these nutrients should be monitored.

The soil tests reveal that the levels of many of these key nutrients and soil properties

(with the exception of magnesium and calcium which were considered “excessive”) were

improved by the addition of the biosolids, with the greatest improvements occurring in N Center

3 where the biosolids were mixed into the soil. Mixing the amendment into the soil allows the

nutrients from the biosolids to leach into the deeper layers at a greater amount than soil with the

amendment simply laid on top of it. Both methods of biosolid application had positive benefits

on the soil, specifically, as studies have previously shown, in terms of soil quality and carbon

sequestration potential. However, unlike previous studies, this experiment compares the effects

of the application of biosolids in two different ways: laid on top of the soil and mixed into the

soil. Based on the results of this experiment, mixing biosolids into the top 4-6 inches of soil is a

sustainable agricultural practice that can be utilized in the Climate Victory Garden in order to

decrease greenhouse gas emissions by promoting soil carbon sequestration to combat climate

change.

3. Data Collection Conclusion

Greenhouse gas emissions continue to skyrocket year after year, resulting in the rapid

progression of global warming. The need to limit greenhouse gas emissions is growing by the

second. Agriculture, forestry, and land use is a major contributor towards global warming,

making up roughly a quarter of anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas emissions.

Therefore, sustainable agricultural practices that are effective, efficient, and inexpensive are

necessary to combat climate change. The Climate Victory Garden is a model for which
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 21

agricultural practices are sustainable and how these sustainable practices can be implemented.

The aim of this research was to determine whether the application of composts such as biosolids

should be added to this repertoire of sustainable practices. The results revealed that biosolids

have the potential to improve soil quality and soil carbon sequestration, particularly when mixed

into the top layer of soil. Therefore, the application of biosolids can be implemented as an

agricultural practice that benefits both the soil and the planet.

IV. Conclusion

While companies and research facilities spend an immense amount of money and time

developing expensive and ineffective technologies in a desperate attempt to save the planet, the

Climate Victory Garden is a new, inexpensive, and effective way to mitigate climate change.

Furthermore, it presents a way for anyone and everyone to become involved in the fight against

global warming. This garden combines an abundance of agricultural practices that researchers

have found to be environmentally beneficial into one project, including no-tillage, planting

perennials, increasing biodiversity, incorporating organic agriculture, using cover crops, growing

food locally, and, based on the previously described experiment, the application of biosolid

amendments. However, it is important to keep in mind that, while the data collected on the

Climate Victory Garden aims to provide an understanding of the effectiveness of the garden’s

sustainable practices on climate change mitigation, these results only apply to a specific garden

in a specific location. Further research would need to be conducted to determine the effects of

these practices on soil quality in other parts of the world with different plants, climates, and soil

conditions. Nevertheless, the Climate Victory Garden is a promising step forward on the path to

reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and ultimately attaining the negative emissions

required to prevent catastrophic global warming.

CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 22

In order to reach this goal, though, individuals and communities would need to take

action. Imagine if Americans adopted the victory garden movement today with as much

enthusiasm as they did during the early twentieth century. There could be millions of sustainable

victory gardens planted across the country. Even better, imagine if the whole world joined

together in this effort to protect this beautiful planet that every plant, animal, and human calls

home. Widespread adoption of the Climate Victory Garden movement could achieve the

negative emissions needed to limit warming to less than 2℃, the threshold for catastrophic

global warming. There is only one Earth, and it is dying. Humans need to find solutions– and

fast. Cutting all greenhouse gas emissions is not enough. Researching fancy and expensive

technologies that may or may not solve the problem in the long term is not enough. Waiting

around for someone else to do something is not enough. Every person needs to do their part. It is

time to bring back the victory garden movement to fight a new war: the war on climate change.
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 23

References

Adewale, C., Higgins, S., Granatstein, D., Stöckle, C. O., Carlson, B. R., Zaher, U. E., &
Carpenter-Boggs, L. (2016). Identifying hotspots in the carbon footprint of a small scale
organic vegetable farm. Agricultural systems, 149, 112-121.

Busari, M. A., Kukal, S. S., Kaur, A., Bhatt, R., & Dulazi, A. A. (2015). Conservation tillage
impacts on soil, crop and the environment. International Soil and Water Conservation
Research, 3(2), 119-129.

Chambers, A., Lal, R., & Paustian, K. (2016). Soil carbon sequestration potential of US
croplands and grasslands: Implementing the 4 per Thousand Initiative. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation, 71(3), 68A-74A.

Chen, S., Wang, W., Xu, W., Wang, Y., Wan, H., Chen, D., ... & Zhou, D. (2018). Plant
diversity enhances productivity and soil carbon storage. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 115(16), 4027-4032.

Chen, X., Chen, H. Y., Chen, C., Ma, Z., Searle, E. B., Yu, Z., & Huang, Z. (2019). Effects of
plant diversity on soil carbon in diverse ecosystems: a global meta-analysis. Biological
Reviews, 000-000.

Del Mar Montiel‐Rozas, M., Panettieri, M., Madejón, P., & Madejón, E. (2016). Carbon
sequestration in restored soils by applying organic amendments. Land degradation &
development, 27(3), 620-629.

Green America. (n.d.). Climate Victory Gardens. Retrieved from

www.greenamerica.org/climatevictorygarden.

Kane, D., & Solutions, L. L. C. (2015). Carbon sequestration potential on agricultural lands: a
review of current science and available practices. In Natl. Sustain. Agric. Coalit. Wash.
DC USA.

Krauss, M., Ruser, R., Müller, T., Hansen, S., Mäder, P., & Gattinger, A. (2017). Impact of
reduced tillage on greenhouse gas emissions and soil carbon stocks in an organic grass-
clover ley-winter wheat cropping sequence. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 239,
324-333.

Lal, R. (2015). Sequestering carbon and increasing productivity by conservation agriculture.

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 70(3), 55A-62A.
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 24

Michalský, M., & Hooda, P. S. (2015). Greenhouse gas emissions of imported and locally
produced fruit and vegetable commodities: A quantitative assessment. Environmental
Science & Policy, 48, 32-43.

Niggli, U. (2015). Sustainability of organic food production: challenges and innovations.

Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 74(1), 83-88.

Parker, D.R.. (2007). How to Take a Soil Sample for Home Lawns and Gardens.
University of Delaware. Newark, DE. Retrieved from
www.udel.edu/content/dam/udelImages/canr/pdfs/extension/environmental-
stewardship/Circular-19-How-to-Take-a-Soil-Sample-for-Home-Lawns-and-Gardens.pdf

Pezzuolo, A., Dumont, B., Sartori, L., Marinello, F., Migliorati, M. D. A., & Basso, B. (2017).
Evaluating the impact of soil conservation measures on soil organic carbon at the farm
scale. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 135, 175-182.

Poeplau, C., & Don, A. (2015). Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover
crops–A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 200, 33-41.

Ponisio, L. C., M'Gonigle, L. K., Mace, K. C., Palomino, J., de Valpine, P., & Kremen, C.
(2015). Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proceedings
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1799), 20141396.

Rempe, S. (2017, July 17). Too Much Magnesium for Plants. Retrieved from
www.hunker.com/13428066/too-much-magnesium-for-plants

Sage Publications. (2008, February 27). Compost Can Turn Agricultural Soils Into A
Carbon Sink, Thus Protecting Against Climate Change. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080225072624.htm

Schleussner, C. F., Rogelj, J., Schaeffer, M., Lissner, T., Licker, R., Fischer, E. M., ... & Hare,
W. (2016). Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal.
Nature Climate Change, 6(9), 827-835.

Shelef, O., Weisberg, P. J., & Provenza, F. D. (2017). The value of native plants and local
production in an era of global agriculture. Frontiers in plant science, 8, 2069.

Toensmeier, E. (2017). Perennial staple crops and agroforestry for climate change mitigation. In
Integrating Landscapes: Agroforestry for Biodiversity Conservation and Food
Sovereignty (pp. 439-451). Springer, Cham.
CULTIVATION FOR MITIGATION 25

UNEP (2019). Emissions Gap Report 2019. Executive summary. United Nations Environment
Programme, Nairobi.

United States Climate Alliance. (2018, September). From SLCP Challenge to Action. Retrieved
from www.usclimatealliance.org/slcp-challenge-to-action

Wijesekara, Hasintha, et al. "The impact of biosolids application on organic carbon and
carbon dioxide fluxes in soil." Chemosphere 189 (2017): 565-573.

Yang, Y., Tilman, D., Furey, G., & Lehman, C. (2019). Soil carbon sequestration accelerated by
restoration of grassland biodiversity. Nature communications, 10(1), 718.