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.

This paper discusses the authors’ study of the carbon footprint of a small organic

vegetable farm in Washington state. The authors calculated greenhouse gas emissions associated

with on-farm activities, such as the use of machines and fertilization, as well as off-farm

activities, such as manufacturing equipment and transportation. They also accounted for carbon

sequestration in the farm’s overall carbon footprint. The study identified that the farm’s greatest

carbon hotspots were fuel use (especially from equipment used for tilling), organic fertilizer, soil

emissions, and irrigation. Individual crops with the highest emissions included cauliflower,

potatoes, and peppers, although dry bush beans had the greatest carbon footprint by mass.

Furthermore, the study assessed the effects of several different management practices. For

example, they found that cover crops reduced nitrogen leaching and increased crop yield, and

tillage contributed to 31.6% of the farm’s carbon footprint (mostly due to fuel use from tillage

machinery). The authors also note that a shift to the use of biodiesel and a solar-powered

irrigation system could have the potential to reduce the total carbon footprint by 34%, although

the adoption of biodiesel could have other environmental repercussions. They conclude that

identifying significant carbon hotspots on farms can help to determine where innovation and

research efforts should be focused to mitigate agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

The authors of this current 2016 paper are experts in the fields of environmental science

and sustainable agriculture. Cornelius Adewale is a researcher at the Department of Crop and

Soil Science at Washington State University. David Granatstein is a sustainable agriculture

specialist at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State

University. The other authors work in similar fields. An email and an address are provided to
contact the authors. The authors are objective in their analysis of their results and identify

possible limitations to their study. For example, they acknowledge that in their simulations used

to compare the actual measurements from the farm to simulated predictions, they were unable to

mimic certain management practices implemented by the farmer, such as companion planting

and underseeding. They evaluate their findings solely based on the data, without sharing their

own opinions. Additionally, the authors’ claims and evidence can be corroborated by other

sources. For instance, the authors reference a study by Hiller et al. that had similar findings

concerning the carbon footprint of potatoes, which both studies found to be among the crops with

the highest carbon emissions. Furthermore, the authors incorporate data from other sources, such

as data from the IPCC that reported that agriculture and other land use accounts for 25% of

global carbon emissions. A list of references used in the paper is provided. This paper was

written to encourage farmers, policymakers, and business to focus research and innovation

efforts on finding alternatives to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. The authors

speak directly to their audience, calling on farmers to reduce fuel use, fertilization, and tilling

while incorporating more sustainable practices, such as the use of cover crops. They also note

that businesses should work to produce fuel and irrigation alternatives with the support of

policymakers.
 Altieri, M. A., & Nicholls, C. I. (2017). The adaptation and mitigation potential of
traditional agriculture in a changing climate. Climatic Change, 140(1), 33-45.

This paper discusses the importance of traditional agricultural practices used by small

farmers in increasing their resilience to climate change, protecting global food security, and

mitigating global warming. The authors state that there are 1.5 billion smallholders worldwide

that contribute about 50% of the global agricultural output for domestic consumption, and many

of them already cope with and prepare for climate change through traditional agroecological

practices. The paper specifically focuses on three climate smart agricultural practices that have

been used throughout history, prior to industrial agriculture. These practices include raised fields

that assist in dealing with water management issues like flooding, dryland agricultural practices

that increase the soil’s ability to store water during times of rainwater scarcity (droughts), and

increased biodiversity through practices such as cover crops, intercropping, and agroforestry that

have been proven to be more resilient to extreme climate events than conventional monoculture

practices. The authors also outline the mitigation potential of these practices. Traditional farmers

who diversify their farms and do not use pesticides or fertilizers produce lower nitrous oxide

emissions due to lower nitrogen input from fertilizers as well as less carbon dioxide emissions

due to less erosion, better soil structure, and more plant cover. Additionally, agroforestry

systems, which combine the production of livestock or food crops with growing trees, have a

greater potential for increasing above ground carbon stocks and soil carbon sequestration. The

authors note that the implementation of these traditional agricultural practices aid farmers

economically through increasing their crops’ resilience to climate change, help the global

population through increased food security, and protect the environment through the mitigation

of greenhouse gas emissions.

 The authors of this current 2017 paper are experts in the field of agroecology. Miguel

Altieri is a professor of agroecology at the Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and

Management at the University of California, Berkeley. Clara Nicholls is a professor of

agroecology and rural development at the Department of International and Area Studies at the

University of California, Berkeley, and she is the President of the Latin American Scientific

Society of Agroecology. An address and email is provided in the paper for each of the authors

for contact purposes. While the authors are partial towards the implementation of climate smart

traditional agricultural practices, they present their claims objectively and support them with

evidence. They use numbers and data to compare the practices with their counterparts. For

example, they reference a study of the Peruvian Amazon that revealed that an agroforestry

system emitted less than a third of the nitrous oxide emitted by a high fertilizer input cropping

system. Furthermore, the evidence used to support these claims comes from a variety of different

sources. For instance, the authors cite a study by Niggli et al. that estimated reductions of 3.5-4.8

Gt CO2 via agricultural practices that increase carbon sequestration. Additionally, a complete list

of references used in the paper is provided. This paper was written to inform farmers of

traditional agricultural practices that are effective in increasing their crops’ resilience to extreme

climate events as well as decreasing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change. The

authors encourage farmers, especially smallholders, to implement these practices. The authors

also call on policymakers to support policies that encourage climate smart traditional agricultural

systems in order to protect global food security and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
 Angotti, T. (2015). Urban agriculture: long-term strategy or impossible dream?: Lessons
from prospect farm in Brooklyn, New York. Public Health, 129(4), 336-341.

This paper outlines the benefits and challenges of urban agriculture to address diet-related

and environmental issues in cities. The author draws from his personal experience as the founder

of a small urban farm in Brooklyn, New York, to discuss the current state of urban agriculture as

well as what can be done to support its growth. It is estimated that the continuation of current

trends could lead to the urbanization of the entire human population by the end of the 21st

century, resulting in the separation of people and the production of their food, which generally

occurs in rural areas. Urban farming could create opportunities for people to become involved in

growing their own food, offering a variety of social and environmental benefits. However, urban

agriculture faces a plethora of obstacles, many of which could be addressed through policy

changes. For example, land use and tax policies favor the most profitable use of an area of land,

which is usually commercial or residential land use. Urban agriculture would be more attractive

if the infrastructure subsidies and tax incentives for commercial and residential developers were

given to urban farmers instead. The author points out that changing policies to promote urban

farming can only be accomplished through changing the relationship of people to land and

involving people and communities in the effort.

The author of this current 2015 paper is Tom Angotti, who is an expert in the fields of

urban planning and policy as well as land use and the environment. He has a Ph.D. in urban

planning and policy development, and he is currently a professor at Hunter College’s Urban

Policy and Planning and the director of the Hunter College Center for Community Planning &

Development. The paper includes Angotti’s email for the purpose of contacting him. In the

paper, the author expresses his view in favor of expanding urban agriculture, but he covers

multiple perspectives by discussing the issues associated with urban farming while including
possible solutions. For example, importing healthy soil for farms is often necessary due to poor

soil quality in urban environments. However, the author states that trucking in soil to the city

adds energy and environmental costs. Instead, he shares his successful experience with gradually

healing the soil by blending it with compost from local kitchen scraps, though concerns about

heavy metals in the soil still remain. Angotti’s claims are supported by evidence from his own

experience as well as other sources, such as the urban agriculture project in New York City, Five

Borough Farm. Additionally, a list of references used in the paper is provided. This paper was

written to emphasize the growing importance of urban agriculture due to urbanization, climate

change, and increasingly poor diets. The author attempts to grab the attention of policy makers to

persuade them to change land policies to foster the growth of urban agriculture. The paper also

informs people in urban areas interested in getting involved in urban agriculture about the

importance of their support in changing these policies.

 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.

This paper discusses the benefits of conservation tillage practices in comparison with

conventional tillage practices. The increasing world population and the escalation of global

warming demands the use of more sustainable and resilient agricultural practices, such as

conservation tillage. Conservation tillage includes zero tillage or no-till practices as well as

reduced or minimum tillage. These practices allow for minimal soil disturbance and degradation

along with a variety of other environmental advantages as compared to conventional tillage.

Studies have shown that conservation tillage improves physical, chemical, and biological soil

properties. Untilled plots store more water and have better water use efficiency than those with

conventional tillage, leading to an increase of water available to plants. Water retention is

especially beneficial in dry areas or during droughts, which are becoming more prevalent due to

climate change. Additionally, the plant residues that remain on the surface layer in soils with

minimal or no tillage increase organic matter within the soil, particularly soil organic carbon and

nitrogen, which is associated with a decrease in leaching and mineralization. This increase in soil

organic carbon is due to the soil’s enhanced carbon sequestration potential in plots that utilize

conservation tillage. Transitioning from conventional tillage practices to no-till has been shown

to not only result in less CO2 emissions due to an increased carbon sequestration rate, but studies

have also reported a decrease in nitrous oxide and methane emissions from conservation tillage.

The paper concludes that minimal or zero tillage practices are proven to be more

environmentally friendly and resilient to the effects of climate change.

The authors of this current 2015 paper are experts in the fields of sustainable agriculture

and soil science. Mutiu Abolanle Busari is a senior lecturer at the Department of Soil Science
and Land Use at the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta and has a Ph.D. in Soil Physics.

Surinder Singh Kukal is a professor at the Punjab Agricultural University and has a Ph.D. in soil

conservation. The other authors are also experts in similar fields. An email and address is

provided to contact the authors. While the authors are partial towards the implementation of

conservation tillage practices as opposed to conventional tillage, they address the advantages and

disadvantages of both practices. For example, the authors state that while zero tillage increases

root mass in upper soil layers, the soil compaction that results from this practice can impede the

growth of roots in deeper soil layers. In conventional tillage plots, the root mass is greater in

deeper layers but significantly lower in upper layers compared to zero tillage. Minimum tillage

practices have been shown to yield the greatest root mass overall. Furthermore, all the authors’

claims are supported by evidence that can be corroborated by other sources. For example, the

authors reference a study by Jacobs, Rauber, and Ludwig that compared soil aggregates in

minimum tillage and conventional tillage plots. The study found that the minimum tillage plots

had more stable aggregates as well as an increase in the concentrations of soil organic carbon and

nitrogen within the soil aggregates. The authors also use data from other sources to support their

claims. For instance, the authors cite a paper by Tebrugge & Epperlein that found that converting

from conventional tillage to zero tillage could result in a carbon sequestration rate of up to 3667

kg CO2 ha-1 per year. Additionally, a list of references used in the paper is provided. This paper

was written to inform farmers and land users of the benefits of conservation tillage practices,

including minimum and zero tillage, as compared to conventional tillage and to persuade them to

adopt these practices. The authors cite sustainable crop yield increases along with less negative

impacts on the soil and environment and reasons to implement these practices that are attractive

to the audience. They stress the importance of sustainable tillage systems and call on farmers and
land users to adopt them in order to benefit themselves through more resilient crops, which is

especially necessary due to the effects of climate change, as well as to benefit the environment.
 Chabbi, A., Lehmann, J., Ciais, P., Loescher, H. W., Cotrufo, M. F., Don, A., ... &
Rumpel, C. (2017). Aligning agriculture and climate policy. Nature Climate Change,
7(5), 307.

This paper discusses the importance of implementing carbon sequestration initiatives to

remove carbon from the atmosphere and limit the global average temperature increase to less

than 2 degrees Celsius. The authors reference a proposed action plan called the 4% initiative,

which aims to increase soil organic carbon annually by 4% through economically feasible and

environmentally sound agricultural practices. They state that the application of these practices to

all global soils would offset two-thirds of the annual anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions,

but not all global soils are managed or able to have these practices applied to them. Therefore, a

more achievable potential would be an offset of fossil-fuel emissions equivalent to the European

Union or another large emitter. Soil carbon sequestration also provides a number of co-benefits

that can be used as incentives for the implementation of these practices by landowners, such as

rehabilitating degraded soils and restoring soil quality, which in turn allow for increased food

production and the economic benefits that accompany it. The authors mention possible barriers

to the adoption of plans like the 4% initiative, as well as the remaining work that still is required

by scientists, policymakers, and landowners to allow for the implementation of agricultural

practices that encourage carbon sequestration.

The authors of this current 2017 paper are experts in the fields of environmental science,

soil science, and agricultural sustainability. The lead author, Dr. Abad Chabbi, has a Ph.D. in

ecology and Earth science and is currently the Director of Research of the Department of

Environment and Agronomy at the French National Institute for Agricultural Research. An email

is provided in the paper to contact Dr. Chabbi. While the authors express a bias in favor of the

implementation of agricultural practices that encourage carbon sequestration and plans such as
the 4% initiative, they address concerns by opponents to these practices. For example, they state

that economic competition with other practices that are cheaper short-term and resource

availability may be barriers to the adoption of these practices in certain regions. Furthermore, the

authors use evidence from a variety of other sources to support their claims. For instance, they

reference sources by Rogelj et al. and Lal that provide evidence to support their claim that the

target of limiting warming to below 2 degrees Celsius can only be met in the long term with

negative emissions, which can be achieved through soil carbon sequestration. They also use data

from a source by P. Smith to express the effectiveness of soil carbon sequestration practices

worldwide, depending on the amount of global soils that are managed and available for these

practices. Additionally, a complete list of references used in the paper is provided. This paper

was written to inform scientists, policymakers, and landowners of the effectiveness of practices

that support soil carbon sequestration in mitigating global warming. The authors express the need

for further scientific research concerning environmental and economic effects and benefits of

these practices for different soil types, climate zones, production systems, and farming

capabilities. They call on policymakers to implement action plans like the 4% initiative and

landowners to apply more agricultural practices that allow for soil carbon sequestration to limit

the global temperature increase and decrease food insecurity.

 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.

This paper discusses suggestions for implementing the 4 per Thousand Initiative, which

was created at the 21st meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Paris in 2015 and aims to

enhance the carbon stock of global managed soils by an annual average increase of 0.4%. The

authors begin by listing possible modifications to the initiative that would support any ongoing

efforts to promote soil carbon sequestration and allow countries to be more flexible, such as

establishing carbon stock targets specific to individual countries and improving monitoring

networks to track progress through soil carbon measurements and tracking of field management

practices. Additionally, the paper analyzes the implementation of the 4 per Thousand Initiative

specific to the United States. The authors evaluate the economic cost in the U.S. of achieving the

0.4% annual increase of carbon sequestration and determine that to meet this goal, 10 million

acres of cropland and 20 million acres of grassland would need to be enrolled in conservation

practices for the next ten years. They conclude that land use, which makes up a quarter of global

greenhouse gas emissions, must be part of the solution to combating climate change. With a few

modifications and correct implementation, the 4 per Thousand Initiative can have long-term

environmental benefits to assist in climate change mitigation.

The authors of this current 2016 paper are experts in the fields of environmental

conservation, carbon sequestration, and soil science. Adam Chambers is a leader of the Energy

and Environmental Markets Team at the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rattan

Lal is the director of the Carbon Management and Sequestration Center at Ohio State University.

Keith Paustian is a professor of Soil Ecology at the Department of Soil and Crop Sciences at

Colorado State University. A phone number and email is provided to contact the authors. While
the authors are partial to the implementation of the 4 per Thousand Initiative, they acknowledge

possible challenges and costs of the initiative. For example, they report that conservation

practices implemented in the U.S. on cropland and grasslands in the past decade have cost $597

million and $355 million, respectively. However, they also note that these costs do not include

the monetary value of co-benefits. They also recognize that in order to expand these practices,

major economic and policy changes would need to be made. Additionally, the authors’ claims

and evidence can be corroborated by other sources. For instance, they cite a source by Ogle et al.

that states that the U.S. uses a statistical approach based on the Tier 3 model to quantify carbon

stock changes for the top 20 cm soil layer, while most other countries use Tier 1 and 2 methods

to quantify the first 30 cm of soil, which creates a conflict when tracking global carbon

sequestration progress. Furthermore, the authors use data from other sources, such as data from

Lal et al. that found that global soil carbon stocks have been depleted by 66 ± 12 Pg due to

historic agricultural land management. A list of references used in the paper is provided. This

paper was written to inform policymakers of the modifications that should be made to the 4 per

Thousand Initiative to support its implementation in the U.S. and other countries and to

encourage farmers and ranchers to adopt conservation practices to assist in reaching the carbon

sequestration goals set by the initiative. The authors speak directly to their audience, listing

specific changes that should be made to the initiative by policymakers and specific guidelines to

its implementation, such as the amount of cropland and grasslands that would need to be enrolled

and which practices would need to be applied. They also state that the implementation would not

be possible without the efforts of farmers and ranchers who adopt and invest their time and

money into these land management practices.

 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.

This paper discusses a meta-analysis conducted to determine the effect of diverse species

mixtures on soil organic carbon sequestration and stock, microbial biomass carbon, and

productivity as compared to monocultures. The authors analyzed 1001 observations pairing

diverse mixtures with monocultures from 121 peer-reviewed publications, encompassing a wide

variety of ecosystems, climates, geographic regions, and time spans. The results revealed that

soil organic carbon stocks were 8% higher in mixtures than in monocultures. While microbial

biomass was also higher for mixtures, the carbon released into the atmosphere by microbial

decomposition was accounted for by the enhanced soil carbon sequestration. Furthermore,

deeper soil depth and longer standing time led to increased soil carbon in species mixtures. The

authors also calculated that converting half of global forests from diverse mixtures to

monocultures would result in a release of 2.70 Pg of Carbon from the soil annually, which is

equivalent to 30% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. These findings suggest that

increased biodiversity can be a key tool in mitigating climate change through the enhancement of

soil productivity, quality, and organic carbon stocks and sequestration.

The authors of this current 2019 paper are experts in the fields of natural resources and

environmental science. Xinli Chen belongs to the Faculty of Natural Resources Management at

Lakehead University. Han Y. H. Chen works at the Key Laboratory for Humid Subtropical Eco-

Geographical Processes of the Ministry of Education at Fujian Normal University. The other

authors work in similar fields. An email and address are provided to contact the authors. The

authors are objective in their analysis of their results and identify possible limitations to their

study. For example, the authors acknowledge that they may have underestimated the impact of
plant diversity loss on soil carbon stocks in forests because the average soil depth of their data

was only 17 cm, while the impacts on soil carbon increase in deeper soils over time. They

evaluate their findings solely based on the data, without sharing their own opinions.

Additionally, the authors’ claims and evidence can be corroborated by other sources. For

instance, the authors reference a study by Liang et al. that agreed with their findings that the

positive effects of plant diversity on productivity increases over time. Furthermore, the authors

incorporate data from other sources, such as data from Don et al. that determined that human

land-use activities, including converting diverse forests into croplands, has resulted in a decline

of global soil organic carbon by 25%, causing an increase of 32% in anthropogenic greenhouse

gas emissions. A full list of references used in the paper is provided. This paper was written to

inform those who manage land, such as government agencies or private sectors, of the

importance of protecting plant diversity, especially in forests, and to explain the need for further

research concerning how different climate conditions, soil properties, and plant functional

properties impact diversity effects on soil organic carbon. The authors speak directly to their

audience, calling on land managers to conserve existing biodiversity and encourage the planting

of more species to promote effective soil management. The authors also reach out to scientists to

conduct further studies comparing species mixtures and monocultures in varying conditions.
 Cooper, M. (2018). Governing the global climate commons: The political economy of
state and local action, after the US flip-flop on the Paris Agreement. Energy policy, 118,
440-454.

In this paper, the author discusses the reasons for the United States’ withdrawal from the

Paris Agreement under the Trump administration. He also explains the national and global

effects of the withdrawal, including both negative impacts and possible benefits. President

Trump’s decision to pull out of the agreement in order to protect the interests of fossil fuel

companies left the United States isolated from the rest of the world, as it was the only country in

the United Nations, once Syria signed on, that was not part of the agreement. However, the

author argues that the withdrawal opened up new opportunities for individual states and cities to

become involved. If the entire country were to remain part of the agreement, the federal

government would set the standards and regulate industries. With individual states signing on to

programs such as the Under2 Coalition and Northeastern Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative,

they are able to set their own standards and regulations and are much more likely to be compliant

with the goals of the Paris Agreement. The author states that there are 22 potentially compliant

states. Additionally, an analysis of fossil fuel consumption showed that non-compliant states

consume 60% more energy than compliant states and that the compliant states account for a

much smaller share of fossil fuel production. While many Americans condemn the Trump

administration for pulling out of the Paris Agreement, the author notes that the withdrawal is not

as devastating as it may seem due to the opportunities it provides to state and local governments

that may strengthen the words of the agreement, which encourages participation and compliance

from subnational entities, such as individual states.

The author of this current 2018 paper, Mark Cooper, is an expert in the field of

environmental and energy policy. He holds a Ph.D. from Yale University and is currently a
Senior Research Fellow for Economic Analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment.

An email address for Dr. Cooper is provided in the paper. While the author does exhibit a bias in

favor of state compliance with the goals of the Paris Agreement, he addresses all sides of the

issue by explaining reasons for opposition to the Paris Agreement by the Trump administration

and others, mainly the protection of fossil fuel interests that they believe are crucial to the

economy. Dr. Cooper uses evidence to explain why the goals of the Paris Agreement are actually

more beneficial to the economy than fossil fuels. He cites a 2017 analysis by Abt that estimates

the value of non-carbon pollution reduction as just under $6 billion and points out that alternative

energy sources, like solar, deliver more jobs and larger economic output than fossil fuels. All the

author’s claims are supported by evidence, and all his data is corroborated by other sources. For

example, the author provides a list of sources used for a chart that displays data from an analysis

of the environmental policies of the potentially compliant states. The author also includes a list

of references. This paper was written to inform state and local policymakers of what they can do

as subnational entities to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, despite the United States’

withdrawal from the agreement as a whole. The author calls on state and local governments to

look past the nation’s withdrawal and implement policies in their own regions that comply with

the agreement.
 Grewer, U., Nash, J., Gurwick, N., Bockel, L., Galford, G., Richards, M., ... &
Wollenberg, E. (2018). Analyzing the greenhouse gas impact potential of smallholder
development actions across a global food security program. Environmental Research
Letters, 13(4), 044003.

This paper outlines a study that aims to assess the impacts of improved agricultural

management practices by smallholder farmers on crop and livestock greenhouse gas emissions.

In the study, the authors analyzed 134 crop and livestock production systems in 15 countries.

Results came from 26 development projects that were compliant with data quality assurance

measures to ensure accurate and high quality results. The agricultural practices implemented

included improved management of non-flooded annual cropland, the expansion and

improvement of agroforestry systems, alternate wetting and drying of rice crops, avoided forest

conversion, and reducing total livestock numbers. Additionally, the projects implemented

management practices promoting post-harvest loss reductions, such as improved timing of

ripening and harvest operations, improved harvesting practices and post-harvest handling,

improved product processing, and improved product storage. The results of the study revealed

that improved management practices and technologies by smallholder farmers significantly

reduce greenhouse gas emission intensity of agricultural production, increase yields, reduce post-

harvest losses, and mostly decrease net greenhouse gas emissions per area. In comparison,

business-as-usual practices produce greenhouse gas emissions that are 43% higher and emit an

additional 17.7 million tCO2e annually. A major contributor to the emission reductions was

increased carbon sequestration as well as decreased nitrous oxide emissions from adjusted

fertilizer application rates. With the projected increase in global food production in the near

future, the authors express the importance of decreasing the greenhouse gas intensity of

smallholder agriculture to assist in mitigating climate change.

 The authors of this current 2018 study are experts in the fields of agriculture and

sustainability. Uwe Grewer is a researcher at the Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food

Innovation and has previously worked with the Food and Agriculture Organization on Climate-

Smart Agriculture. Julie Nash has a Ph.D. in natural resources and was a project leader with the

CGIAR program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security. The other authors have

similar credentials. An address is provided in the paper for each of the authors as well as an

email for contact purposes. The authors do not express a bias in the paper. They base their claims

solely off the results from their own research as well as data from other studies. They describe

the methods they used for their data collection that ensure the data is high quality and accurate,

such as withdrawing data flagged by project implementing organizations. The authors also

objectively discuss possible limitations to their study, including potential leakage or

displacement, meaning a harmful practice shifts from one location to another, that could have

occurred. Furthermore, the authors relate their own findings to evidence provided by various

other sources. For example, the authors use default greenhouse gas emission factors from the

IPCC to estimate methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide emissions for crops and livestock

under certain conditions. They also use a source from Smith et al. to estimate the influence of

improved feeding and breeding practices on livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions.

Additionally, a complete list of references used in the paper is provided. This paper was written

to inform smallholder farmers of the importance of agricultural management practices that can

be implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate global warming and increase

crop yield to prevent food insecurity. The authors also address the need for further scientific

research on methods to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, such as season-specific

estimates, as well as the need for widespread support from environmentalists, policymakers, and

farmers for agricultural practices that are less greenhouse gas intensive.
 Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., ...
& Woodbury, P. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 114(44), 11645-11650.

This paper discusses the potential impacts of natural climate solutions (NCS) on

mitigating climate change. These natural climate solutions include 20 conservation, restoration,

and land management actions that can be implemented to decrease or avoid greenhouse gas

emissions and increase carbon sequestration. The authors analyzed the monetary cost of these

solutions as well as their effectiveness at holding the increase of the average global temperature

below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, as outlined by the Paris Climate Agreement.

NCS can be implemented at low costs (less than 100 USD MgCO2-1) and still be effective at

maintaining warming below 2 degrees Celsius. Two-thirds of this lower cost mitigation is

offered by reforestation, followed by avoided forest conversion, improved forest management,

grassland and agriculture pathways (increasing food production, improving soil fertility, etc.),

and wetland pathways (avoiding wetland loss, wetland restoration, etc.). While NCS are

expected to provide substantial environmental benefits, they require more research to reduce the

uncertainty of the estimates of their effects, such as possible feedbacks from climate change that

could impact carbon storage. However, the implementation of NCS along with a reduction in the

usage of fossil fuels is crucial to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement by holding

warming to below 2 degrees Celsius.

The authors of this current 2017 paper are experts in the fields of environmental science

and climate science. To name a few, Bronson W. Griscom is the Director of Forest Carbon

Science at the Nature Conservancy in Arlington, Justin Adams is the Executive Director of the

Tropical Forest Alliance at the Nature Conservancy, and Pete Smith is the Chair in Plant and Soil

Science at the University of Aberdeen. Locations of the authors’ workplaces and an email are
provided for contacting the authors. The authors do not express a bias in the paper. They

compare their findings to other studies and discuss possible explanations for differences,

including limitations to their own study. For example, they state that their assessment of the

contribution of NCS to meeting the Paris Agreement is conservative for several reasons,

including the fact that it does not consider payments for other ecosystem services besides carbon

sequestration. The authors’ assessments and claims are supported by evidence from other

sources. For instance, the maximum cost for emissions of 100 USD MgCO2-1 used in their study

is corroborated by a 2015 study by Dietz and Stern concerning deep cuts in carbon emissions.

Additionally, a list of references used in the paper is provided. The paper was written to inform

policymakers, companies, and people who manage land about natural climate solutions, such as

reforestation of grazing lands and wetland conservation, that can be done to increase carbon

sequestration, decrease greenhouse gas emissions, and limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius.

The authors also call on scientists to continue studying NCS to reduce the uncertainty of their

effectiveness and state that work must be done to implement NCS in socially responsible ways

through policy or other initiatives.

 Herrmann, M. M. (2015). The Modern Day “Victory Garden”. Procedia engineering,
118, 647-653.

This paper discusses the history of victory gardens in the United States as well as the

current status of home gardens and the legal challenges they face today. During World War I and

World War II, the National War Garden Commission was formed to encourage Americans to

cultivate home victory gardens to aid with the nation’s food production. While interest in

gardening decreased after the wars, gardening is now a popular part of American culture once

again due to its environmental and health benefits. In 2007, it was reported that over 870 million

pounds of pesticide were used in the U.S.. Furthermore, 93% of soybeans and 90% of corn were

genetically modified in 2013. Home victory gardens provide a way to grow food in a more

environmentally friendly and sustainable way, without the use of pesticides or genetic

modification. However, gardeners face a variety of legal obstacles, such as restrictive covenants

on land that place limitations on gardening. Many homeowner associations (HOAs) enforce

restrictive covenants that prevent landowners from gardening in their front yards or replacing

pre-existing plants with a different variety. For example, an HOA in Florida filed a lawsuit

against a resident who submitted an application to replace her St. Augustine grass with a hardier

type that does not require irrigation, even though the HOA had a policy that required residents to

have the St. Augustine variety of grass, which needs large amounts of irrigation and fertilizer.

Despite these regulations, many states are beginning to pass legislation that supports home

gardening, such as ordinances that provide tax incentives and less limitations on greenhouses.

The author of this current 2015 paper, Michele M. Herrmann, is an expert in the field of

land use regulations and laws. Herrmann has a J.D. from the New York Law School and is

currently a professor of land use and construction law at Mississippi State University. A phone

number and email is provided to contact the author. While the author is partial towards
legislation that supports home gardening, she acknowledges the reasons for the regulations that

many states and homeowner associations place on gardening. For example, the author notes that

many HOAs prohibit front yard gardens for aesthetic purposes, and some require certain plants

to be grown in screened patios for public safety purposes. Additionally, all her claims are

supported by evidence and data that can be corroborated by other sources. For example,

Herrmann cites an article by the American Planning Association titled “Zoning for Urban

Agriculture” that provides examples of regulations and ordinances that cities can adopt to

support urban agriculture, such as including urban agriculture in policies regarding food and land

use and in the city’s planning process. She also uses data that supports her claims about the

health and environmental benefits of home gardening, including statistics about pesticide use,

food waste, and genetically engineered crops from a food system factsheet by the Center for

Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan. A full list of references used in the paper is

provided. This paper was written to encourage individuals who garden or are interested in

gardening to demand changes to ordinances that limit property rights with regard to home

gardening and to persuade states and cities to adopt legislation the supports home gardening. The

author calls on individuals to assert their rights to garden on their property and work with civic

leaders to initiate policy change. In addition, the author lays out specific ways that cities and

states can promote home gardening and urban agriculture, such as providing tax subsidies to

home gardeners and creating urban agriculture zoning in cities. Herrmann speaks directly to her

audience by clearly stating what individuals and policymakers can do to support home

gardening.
 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.

This paper discusses a number of agricultural practices that can be implemented to

increase carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration results in carbon being stored in the soil

rather than being released into the atmosphere, which advances climate change. Research

suggests that emissions mitigation alone is not enough to stabilize the atmosphere, therefore

strategies such as carbon sequestration that draw carbon from the air are necessary. The author

outlines possible strategies that do this, such as conventional no-till and conservation tillage,

organic no-till, cover crops and crop rotations, rotational grazing, and perennial cropping

systems. The author points out that many of these practices are not adequately studied and still

have uncertain long-term effectiveness. However, many of these practices also have co-benefits,

including improved water quality and soil structure, that can be incentives for their

implementation. Additionally, the author addresses the possibility of soil saturation, which

occurs when the soil reaches its capacity of soil carbon sequestration and becomes a source of

carbon, meaning it releases more carbon than it accumulates, as opposed to a carbon sink, in

which it accumulates more carbon than it releases. The paper also notes the importance of

reducing other greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture, such as nitrous oxide from soils

saturated with water or from heavy fertilizer usage, as well as methane from enteric fermentation

in livestock. The author acknowledges the need for more scientific research on the best practices

for carbon sequestration but states that uncertainty should not inhibit action by both farmers and

policymakers.

The author of this current 2015 paper is Daniel Kane, an expert in the fields of soil

science and agroecology. He is currently a research associate at Michigan State University, a

Research Fellow with Project Drawdown, and a founding member of the Open Agriculture

Learning Series, which focuses on generating open source technology, tools, and data for

agriculture. Daniel Kane’s email address is provided in the paper for contact purposes. The

author does not express a bias in the paper. He is not partial towards any one strategy of carbon

sequestration and explains both positive and negative effects of each method. For example, he

states that while no-till and conservation tillage practices allow for less soil disturbances and an

increase in soil carbon, they may result in an increased reliance on herbicides and fertilizers that

can negatively impact the environment. Furthermore, the author uses evidence from a variety of

other sources to support his claims. For instance, Kane compares the estimates of the global

sequestration potential of agricultural soils from multiple different studies, including the IPCC, a

study by Sommer and Bossio that is more optimistic than the IPCC’s estimates, and a study by

Lassaletta and Aguilera that is more pessimistic. He also mentions studies concerning the

effectiveness of each practice, such as an experiment at the Kellogg Biological Station at

Michigan State University that found that increased crop diversity and the use of winter cover

crops led to an increase in soil carbon over a 12-year period. A list of references used in the

paper is provided. This paper was written to advocate for further research on carbon

sequestration techniques and encourage their implementation. The author calls on scientists to

extend research on these specific agricultural practices and carbon sequestration in general, on

farmers to implement these practices, and on policymakers to consider carbon sequestration

when addressing climate change.

 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.

This paper discusses a study conducted to determine the impact of reduced tillage and

manure compost (a fertilization system) on greenhouse gas emissions and soil carbon stocks as

compared to conventional tillage in combination with slurry. The authors monitored the

emissions of nitrous oxide and methane as well as soil organic carbon stocks for two years in a

crop sequence consisting of grass-clover ley and winter wheat with cover crops. The results

revealed that reduced tillage and manure compost had higher nitrous oxide emissions, likely due

to increased nitrification during times of enhanced microbial activity. However, soils with both

reduced tillage and manure compost had significantly higher soil organic carbon accumulation

than conventional tillage and slurry. There was no significant difference in methane emissions

between the tillage practices. The authors conclude that reduced tillage and manure compost can

be important measures for climate change mitigation in comparison with conventional tillage and

slurry due to less overall greenhouse emissions as a result of increased carbon sequestration.

They also note that in order to decrease nitrous oxide emissions that result from reduced tillage,

tillage frequency should be further reduced and adjusted to cold and dry soil conditions.

The authors of this current 2017 paper are experts in the fields of soil science and

sustainable agriculture. Maike Krauss is a researcher at the Department of Soil Sciences at the

Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland. Reiner Ruser works at the Institute of

Crop Science, Fertilisation, and Soil Dynamics at the University of Hohenheim in Germany. The

other authors work in similar fields. An email and address are provided to contact the authors.

The authors are objective in their analysis of their results and identify possible limitations to their

study. For example, the authors acknowledge that freezing and thawing emissions that could
impact nitrous oxide budgets were not found in their samples, indicating that they were either

negligible or possibly missed by the manual sampling procedure. They evaluate their findings

solely based on the data, without sharing their own opinions. Additionally, the authors’ claims

and evidence can be corroborated by other sources. For instance, the authors state that while their

results conflicted with some previous findings, they were consistent with other studies, such as

one by Chatskikh et al. that also found higher nitrous oxide fluxes in reduced till winter wheat

fields than conventional till. Furthermore, the authors incorporate data from other sources, such

as data from Li et al. that reported that reduced tillage combined with manure compost resulted

in 1763 kg CO2e ha-1a-1 overall less emissions due to higher soil carbon stocks. A full list of

references used in the paper is provided. This paper was written to inform crop growers of the

environmental impacts of different tillage and fertilization systems and to inform scientists of the

climate mitigation potential of these practices and their effects on the emissions of different types

of greenhouse gases. The authors speak directly to their audience, insisting that farmers consider

reduced tillage and manure compost to encourage carbon sequestration and calling on scientists

to expand research concerning nitrous oxide estimations in relation to fertilizer input.

 LaCanne, C. E., & Lundgren, J. G. (2018). Regenerative agriculture: merging farming
and natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ, 6, e4428.

This paper discusses the differences in environmental benefits, net profit, and

productivity between regenerative and conventional agriculture. The authors measured the yield,

profit, insect pest populations, and soil organic matter of corn fields using a regenerative system

and fields using a conventional system. The regenerative fields used multispecies cover crops,

did not till, and did not use insecticides. The conventional fields practiced annual tillage, used

insecticides, left their soil bare (except for the cash crop itself), and were monocultures. The

study found that insect pest populations were ten times higher in the conventional farms that

used insecticide than the regenerative farms that did not. This difference can be attributed to the

low biodiversity of flora and fauna in the conventional fields, allowing pest populations to adapt

and persist. Additionally, while the regenerative fields had yields about 29% lower than the

conventional fields, the regenerative system was twice as profitable due to the higher quality and

value of crops. Furthermore, the regenerative fields had higher levels of organic matter in the

soil, which was shown to be positively correlated with profitability. The authors conclude that

using regenerative agricultural practices that promote biodiversity and increase soil organic

matter can increase net profit while benefiting the environment.

The authors of this current 2018 paper are experts in the field of sustainable agriculture.

Claire LaCanne is an agricultural extension educator at the Department of Agriculture, Food, and

Natural Resources at the University of Minnesota. Jonathan Lundgren is an agroecologist, the

director of the Ecdysis Foundation, and the CEO of the Blue Dasher Farm in South Dakota. An

email and address are provided to contact the authors. The authors are objective in their analysis

of their results and identify possible limitations to their study. For example, the authors note that

because their study only compared one type of crop (corn), the results may differ for other types
of crops, especially those that are not typically genetically modified or treated with insecticide.

They evaluate their findings solely based on the data, without sharing their own opinions.

Additionally, the authors’ claims and evidence can be corroborated by other sources. For

instance, the authors reference a study by Tscharntke et al. that found that lower biodiversity

leads to increased pest problems in agriculture, which is supported by the authors’ findings of

higher insect pest populations in the conventional monocultures. Furthermore, the authors

incorporate data from other sources, such as data from the National Agricultural Statistics

Service that determined that nearly 100% of cornfields in the U.S. are annually treated with

insecticides. A list of references used in the paper is provided. This paper was written to inform

farmers of the little-known profitability of regenerative agriculture and persuade them to include

more biodiversity and fewer inputs of insecticides and fertilizers in their fields. The authors

speak directly to their audience by outlining specific elements of regenerative agriculture that

farmers should incorporate in order to increase net profit while also benefiting the environment.
 Lal, R. (2015). Sequestering carbon and increasing productivity by conservation
agriculture. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 70(3), 55A-62A.

This paper discusses the aspects of conservation agriculture as well as the conclusions

from research concerning the effectiveness of certain conservation methods at sequestering

carbon in the soil and increasing crop productivity. The need for agricultural methods that are

environmentally sustainable and result in high crop yields is increasing as the human population

grows exponentially and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. Research that

aims to assess the environmental impacts of sustainable practices such as conservation tillage is

inconsistent. This may be the result of outside factors, including temperature/ climate, soil

moisture, soil type, erosion, and the input of biomass carbon. For example, no-till farming has

been shown to improve the biological quality of soil by promoting microbial growth, but these

effects are not observed in areas that experience a large amount of erosion. Another problem that

conservation agriculture faces is reduced productivity. When first implemented, conservation

practices may initially result in a slight yield reduction, which results in economic damages for

the farmer and does not improve the global food security issue. However, when implemented

correctly, conservation agriculture can improve soil quality, thus benefiting the environment

through increased carbon sequestration while also increasing crop yield.

The author of this current 2015 paper, Rattan Lal, is an expert in the fields of sustainable

agriculture, carbon sequestration, and soil science. Lal is a professor of soil science and the

director of the Carbon Management and Sequestration Center at the Ohio State University in

Columbus, Ohio. A phone number and email is provided to contact the author. The author is

objective in his analysis of research concerning the benefits and issues of conservation

agricultural practices. For example, he mentions several studies that found that tillage disturbs

the soil and decreases soil quality and carbon sequestration potential. However, he also addresses
research that concluded that there was no significant difference in the carbon sequestration

potential of fields that use conventional tilling compared with conservation tillage or no-till

farming, although he notes that other factors such as erosion may influence these results. He does

not give an opinion as to which method is superior, but instead he provides conclusions from

research and states that the best method may be dependent on other conditions. Additionally, the

author’s claims and evidence can be corroborated by other sources. For instance, Lal references a

study by Deen and Kataki that found that no-till practices increase carbon sequestration only in

the surface layer for a short period of time after conversion. Furthermore, he uses data from other

sources, such as data from Gaiser et al. that estimated an increase in carbon sequestration of 0.08

to 1.83 Mg C ha-1 yr-1 after conversion from plow-till to no-till. A list of references used in the

paper is provided. This paper was written to inform farmers of the possible environmental and

economic benefits and drawbacks of certain agricultural practices and to explain to scientists the

need for further research concerning which practices are best to improve food security and the

environment. The author speaks directly to his audience, stating that farmers should adopt

methods that not only improve productivity but are also sustainable and that scientists should

continue researching the environmental effects of conservation agriculture in different

conditions.
 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.

This paper discusses a study conducted to determine the greenhouse gas emissions of

imported fruits and vegetables in comparison to locally produced fruits and vegetables in the

United Kingdom. The authors estimated carbon equivalent emissions for five selected fruits and

vegetables from the production and transportation stages for both local and imported

commodities. They also used a scenario-based approach to assess the possible emissions savings

that could be achieved by shifting imported commodities to local production by a certain

percentage (25%, 50%, and 75%). The results revealed that the climate change impact of air-

freighted food was the highest at 10.164 kg CO2e per kilogram of non-European imported fruits

and vegetables, compared with only 0.502 kg CO2e per kilogram for commodities produced

locally in the UK and transported using light goods vehicles. Furthermore, the scenarios showed

that with a 25% reduction in imported food (which would shift to locally grown food), up to 28.6

kt of CO2e emission savings could be achieved annually. With a 50% reduction in imported

fruits and vegetables, 57.2 kt of CO2e could be saved, and with a 75% reduction, the UK would

save 85.8 kt of CO2e per year. The authors conclude that local food production requires

significantly less energy inputs in the production and transportation stages, and a shift towards

less imported commodities would result in a considerable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions

in order to contribute to climate mitigation efforts.

The authors of this current 2015 paper are experts in the fields of environmental science

and sustainable food production. Marian Michalsky and Peter Hooda are researchers at the

Department of Geography, Geology, and the Environment at Kingston University London.

Phone numbers and emails are provided to contact the authors. The authors are objective in their
analysis of their results and identify possible limitations to their study. For example, the authors

note that their study only considered the production and transportation stages of the

commodities, while there are several other life cycle stages that were not assessed, although the

environmental impact of these other stages is much smaller. They also mention that there is a

degree of uncertainty in their calculations of air emissions because food commodities are

transported by two types of aircrafts, so the authors based their calculations on the average

emission factor of the two aircrafts. They evaluate their findings solely based on the data,

without sharing their own opinions. Additionally, the authors’ claims and evidence can be

corroborated by other sources. For instance, the authors state that their results were consistent

with other studies, such as one by Sim et al. that also found a significant environmental impact

from the transportation stage of food commodities to the UK sourced from non-European

countries. Furthermore, the authors incorporate data from other sources, such as data from

Garnett that determined that air transport of food accounts for 11% of total greenhouse gas

emissions from transportation in the UK. A list of references used in the paper is provided. This

paper was written to inform policymakers, businesses, and food producers of the need to increase

local food production and reduce food imports in order to decrease greenhouse gas emissions

from food production and transportation. The authors speak directly to their audience, calling on

policymakers to adopt policies that encourage local food production and on local businesses and

food producers to grow and supply more food that is generally imported from elsewhere.
 Niggli, U. (2015). Sustainability of organic food production: challenges and innovations.
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 74(1), 83-88.

This paper discusses the environmental advantages of organic agriculture in addition to

the challenges associated with organic farming and the research that is lacking in the field.

Organic agriculture utilizes sustainable and environmentally-friendly practices such as avoiding

pesticides and herbicides, eliminating chemical fertilizers, implementing conservation tillage,

and practicing diversification. Organic farms have been shown to have lower negative

environmental impacts than conventional non-organic farms. For example, organic farms have

greater biodiversity (30% greater species diversity and 50% higher abundance of flora and fauna

than conventional farms), less nitrogen leaches and run-off effects, more fertile soil with higher

organic matter content and greater micro-organism populations, higher carbon sequestration rates

(especially in combination with reduced tillage), less greenhouse gas emissions, and greater

resilience to extreme weather events like droughts or floods, which are increasing in frequency

due to climate change. The author also recognizes that overall yields of organic crops are

generally 20-25% less than those of conventional crops. However, he notes that research shows

significant potential for increases in organic crop yields as compared to non-organic crops,

especially due to declines in conventional yields as the effects of global warming intensify.

The author of this current 2015 paper, Urs Niggli, is an expert in the field of sustainable

agriculture. Niggli is the director of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Frick,

Switzerland. An email and an address is provided to contact the author. While the author is

partial towards organic agricultural practices, he objectively discusses both the benefits and

issues concerning organic farming. For example, he explains many of the environmental

advantages of organic agriculture, such as more stable soils and greater carbon sequestration

potential, which can assist in climate change mitigation. However, he also addresses challenges
associated with reduced yields of organic crops as compared to conventional crops and notes the

lack of research in dealing with this issue. Additionally, the author’s claims and evidence can be

corroborated by other sources. For instance, he references a study in Switzerland by Schader et

al. that found that direct government payments for organic farming were just as cost-effective at

reaching targets for environmental policies as tailored agri-environmental initiatives and

measures. Furthermore, the author incorporates data from other sources, such as data from Stolze

et al. and Drinkwater et al., which determined that there is 35-65% less nitrogen leaching on

organic farms due to the elimination of chemical fertilizers. A list of references used in the paper

is provided. This paper was written to inform farmers of the environmental advantages and other

co-benefits of organic agriculture and to point out to scientists the need for further research and

innovation concerning organic crop productivity and yields. The author speaks directly to this

audience, emphasizing the importance of farmers’ knowledge of organic practices to implement

them correctly, as well as calling on scientists to prioritize research and innovation related to the

productivity of organic crops.

 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.

This paper discusses a study conducted to determine the effects of no-tillage in

comparison to conventional tillage agricultural practices on carbon emissions and soil carbon

sequestration and to analyze the potential climate change mitigation benefits of no-till land

management. The authors collected data concerning field measurements of conventional tillage

and no-tillage practices in farms in the Veneto, Italy region from 2010-2014. They designed a

model to simulate crop, water, soil, and nutrient dynamics under each of the different

management strategies over a long period of time. While the results indicated a decrease in soil

organic carbon under both tillage practices, soil carbon oxidation rates were significantly lower

under no-tillage management, leading to 30% less overall carbon emissions as compared to a

conventional tillage system. Emissions were also decreased under no-tillage due to a lower

number of passes and the higher working capacity of farm machinery. The authors calculated

that a shift towards adopting no-tillage systems in the Veneto region would result in a reduction

of carbon emissions by approximately 86 t CO2 ha-1 over a fifteen year period. They conclude

that no-tillage agricultural practices can be beneficial for mitigating climate change by

preserving soil fertility and decreasing agricultural carbon emissions.

The authors of this current 2017 paper are experts in the fields of environmental science

and sustainable agriculture. Andrea Pezzuolo is a researcher at the Department of Agroforestry

and Landscape at the University of Padua. Benjamin Dumont works at the Department of Earth

and Environmental Sciences at Michigan State University. The other authors work in similar

fields. An email and address are provided to contact the authors. The authors are objective in

their analysis of their results and identify possible limitations to their study. For example, the
authors acknowledge that their study did not investigate the possible effects of the soil and

climate conditions on carbon emissions of the sites. Therefore, their results are only valid for

similar sites located in temperate climates. They evaluate their findings solely based on the data,

without sharing their own opinions. Additionally, the authors’ claims and evidence can be

corroborated by other sources. For instance, the authors reference a study by Pacala and Socolow

that also found the no-tillage agricultural practice to be the most effective in increasing soil

carbon stocks and decreasing carbon emissions. Furthermore, the authors incorporate data from

other sources, such as data from Senthilkumar et al. that calculated similar oxidation rates for the

two tillage systems as the authors’ calculations, which were -48% for conventional tillage and

-15% under no-tillage. A full list of references used in the paper is provided. This paper was

written to define the most sustainable tillage practices to reduce carbon emissions and to promote

the implementation of these practices. The authors speak directly to their audience, calling on

farmers to adopt no-tillage systems in order to increase the quality and fertility of their soil while

decreasing carbon emissions. They also urge policymakers to establish policies to encourage

farmers to adopt no-tillage practices, similar to the subsidies scheme adopted in the Veneto

Region of Italy that promotes these sustainable agricultural practices.

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

This paper discusses a meta-analysis of 30 studies that included 37 agricultural sites to

quantify the potential of cover crops to increase soil carbon sequestration. Cover crops are crops

planted over bare cropland in the winter that are cultivated as green manure before planting the

primary crops. The authors examined data from these sites before and after the addition of cover

crops and derived equations to calculate their annual carbon sequestration rates. They found that

cover crops had a higher soil organic carbon stock than traditional croplands, with an average

annual carbon sequestration rate of 0.32 ± 0.08 Mg ha-1 yr-1. Based on this calculation and the

authors’ conservative estimation that 25% of total global cropland can be used for the cultivation

of cover crops, they determined the potential global soil carbon sequestration to be 0.12 ± 0.03

Pg C yr-1, which would offset 8% of annual agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. The authors

also detail their methods for the meta-analysis, along with limitations to the study and other

possible factors that may have influenced their results, such as the varying treatment times for

each site (1-54 years).

The authors of this current 2015 paper are experts in the fields of soil science and

climate-smart agriculture. Christopher Poeplau works at the Thuenen Institute of Climate-Smart

Agriculture and wrote his Ph.D. thesis about the effect of land-use change on soil organic carbon

stocks and quality. Axel Don is the Deputy Institute Director of the Thuenen Institute of Climate-

Smart Agriculture. A phone number and email is provided to contact the authors. The authors are

objective in their analysis of the results of their study and discuss possible issues and limitations.

For example, they point out that their study has limited data from sites with long-term treatment,

as 78% of the plots utilized cover crops for less than 10 years. They also concede that the

implementation of cover crops might require an initial financial investment, although this
practice has been shown to benefit crop growth and be both environmentally and economically

beneficial in the long run. Additionally, the authors’ claims and evidence can be corroborated by

other sources. For instance, the authors cite a paper by Lal that mentions the additional benefits

of cover crops in addition to carbon sequestration, such as increased biodiversity. Furthermore,

they include data from other sources, such as data from Singer et al, CEAP, CTIC, and

EUROSTAT that together conclude that 1-10% of total cropland already uses cover crops. A full

list of references used in the paper is provided. This paper was written to present the scientific

community with a way to quantify soil carbon sequestration rates as well as inform farmers of

the environmental and economic benefits of cover crops. The authors speak directly to their

audience, calling on scientists to continue to research methods of measuring soil carbon stocks

and other factors that may be affected by cover crops (e.g. albedo and nitrous oxide emissions),

and they call on farmers to implement cover crops in their fields during the winter to protect their

soil carbon stocks and improve soil quality and crop yield.
 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.

This paper discusses a study conducted to determine the crop yield gaps between organic

and conventional agriculture. The authors’ meta-dataset had over three times more yield

comparison than past studies, and they found the organic to conventional yield gap to be only

19.2% lower, a much smaller gap compared to previous estimates of up to 25%. This gap was

further reduced to 8 ± 5% when two diversification practices, multi-cropping and crop rotations,

were utilized in the organic systems. The authors believe this difference in their results as

compared to previous estimates can be attributed to their larger dataset, hierarchical analytical

framework, research concerning the effects of specific management practices, and accounting for

all sources of shared variation in their analysis. The authors also note that their estimate may still

be an overestimate due to a bias in the dataset towards studies that report higher yields for

conventional crops relative to yields of organic crops in addition to the overrepresentation of

specific practices and crops that favor conventional farming, such as cereal plants that were bred

to be more productive with conventional inputs. The authors conclude that further research

concerning which practices are most beneficial for organic crop productivity may help to close

the yield gap between organic and conventional crops, thus making organic agriculture an

environmentally beneficial and sustainable farming option that will not jeopardize food security.

The authors of this current 2015 paper are experts in the fields of environmental science

and sustainability. Lauren C. Ponisio is a postdoctoral scholar in the Department of

Environmental Science, Policy, and Management at the University of California, Berkely.

Leithan K. M’Gonigle is a professor of terrestrial ecology at the Department of Biological

Sciences at Simon Fraser University. The other authors work in similar fields. An email and
addresses are provided to contact the authors. The authors are objective in their analysis of their

results and identify possible limitations to their study. For example, they note that their estimates

may be overestimates for several reasons, including possible overlap between studies in their

dataset that utilized multiple diversification practices, making it difficult to determine the

individual impacts of each practice. They evaluate their findings solely based on the data,

without sharing their own opinions. Additionally, the authors’ claims and evidence can be

corroborated by other sources. For instance, the authors reference a study by Seufert et al. that

found low-input conventional systems have a smaller yield gap when compared to organic

systems than high-input conventional systems, which the authors’ study also concluded.

Furthermore, the authors incorporate data from other sources, such as data from Willer & Kilcher

that reported that organic agriculture now takes place on nearly 1% of agricultural lands. A list of

references used in the paper is provided. This paper was written to inform farmers of the

possibility to improve organic yields through the implementation of diversification practices

such as multi-cropping and crop rotation and highlight the need for more updated research

concerning the yield gaps between organic and conventional crops. The authors speak directly to

their audience, calling on organic farmers to include better management practices that increase

crop productivity and on scientists to prioritize research aimed at eliminating the yield gaps

between conventional and organic/ sustainable agriculture through sustainable practices and

identifying obstacles to the adoption and implementation of these practices.

 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.

This paper discusses the components of the Paris Agreement signed in 2015 by the

parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The

predominant aspect of the Paris Agreement was the long-term temperature goal of preventing the

average global temperature from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, as well

as aiming to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The paper addresses the

climate impacts of a 1.5 degree warming compared with a 2 degree warming, revealing that the

negative impacts were significantly greater for a 2 degree warming. For instance, the global

occurrence probability of an extreme heat event is projected to be double for a 2 degree increase

compared to a 1.5 degree increase. Additionally, the authors describe certain pathways that must

be implemented to keep warming below either 2 degrees Celsius or 1.5 degrees Celsius. They

suggest that a goal of zero emissions is insufficient to limit the warming to 2 or 1.5 degrees, and

instead, more research should be conducted concerning technology and pathways that result in

negative CO2 emissions, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Furthermore, the

authors call on the scientific community to continue to investigate a world with a 1.5 degree

warming and a world with a 2 degree warming. The Paris Agreement states that scientific

assessments should be used in the parties’ five-yearly nationally determined contributions, which

represent the mitigation ambition progression of each party.

While this 2016 paper was written prior to the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris

Agreement, it still accurately outlines the characteristics of the Paris Agreement that many other

countries as well as organizations in the United States currently continue to strive to comply

with. In addition, the authors of this paper are experts in the fields of environmental science and
climate science. Dr. Carl-Friedrich Schleussner is the Head of Climate Science and Impacts and

a Scientific Advisor to Climate Analytics. Dr. Joeri Rogelj is a Lecturer in Climate Change and

the Environment at the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London. Locations for the

authors’ workplaces are listed, and an email is provided to contact Schleussner. The authors do

not express a bias in the paper. They objectively discuss possible solutions to limiting global

temperature increase and describe benefits and complications of these solutions. For example,

the authors discuss the possibility of using certain technologies such as bioenergy to achieve

negative emissions. However, they state that the possible effects on ecosystems and agriculture

are still unknown, and more research is still needed for these technologies. Furthermore, the

authors’ claims can be corroborated by various other sources. They provide facts about and

directly from the Paris Agreement, and they use scientific data and other evidence to support

their own findings. For instance, the comparison of hot temperature extremes between 1.5

degrees of warming and 2 degrees can be corroborated by a study by Seneviratne et al.. The

IPCC Assessment Reports are also widely referenced throughout the paper. Additionally, a list of

references used in the paper is provided. This paper was written to inform policymakers,

companies, and scientists about the objectives of the Paris Agreements, how and why those

objectives were developed, and what actions must be taken to comply with those objectives. The

authors call on scientists to continue research on the differences between a 1.5 degree

temperature increase and a 2 degree temperature increase, as well as research concerning the

implementation and impacts of negative emissions technologies. The authors also explain the

components of the Paris Agreement to inform policymakers and companies of the goals that it

aims to meet and what they should do to meet them, such as moving towards zero emissions.
 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.

This paper discusses the benefits and challenges of using local agriculture to produce

food. The authors define local agriculture as consisting of two facets: growing native species that

usually have not already been commercialized as well as food production that involves a short

distance travelled from field to plate. Unfortunately, more resources are currently being invested

into improving the productivity of existing crops as opposed to introducing new native species

that increase biodiversity in crop fields. The authors emphasize that increasing local food

production can limit the agricultural carbon footprint (particularly by reducing food miles

acquired from long-distance transports), lower production costs, benefit local economies, and

provide communities with healthier and fresher foods. Furthermore, the incorporation of native

plants in particular promote genetic diversity, increase soil quality, and increase resistance to

adverse environmental conditions, all of which are especially important as climate change

progresses. The authors also note several obstacles to the adoption of local food production and

non-commercialized native crops, such as the risk factor of growing a new food, the initial

financial investment, biological barriers, and the requirement of approval by a government

agency in some countries like the United States.

The authors of this current 2017 paper are experts in the fields of agriculture, natural

resources, and environmental science. Oren Shelef has a Ph.D. in Plant Science and Natural

Resources and works for the Agricultural Research Organization. Peter Weisberg has a Ph.D. in

Ecology and is a professor at the University of Nevada Reno Department of Natural Resources

and Environmental Science. Frederick Provenza has a Ph.D. in Range Science and teaches at the

Department of Wildland Resources at Utah State University. A phone number and email is

provided to contact the authors. While the authors are partial towards the use of local agriculture
and food production, they acknowledge the risks and obstacles associated with their

implementation. For example, they mention that the adoption of new native plants requires a

large amount of time, research, and money and is accompanied by a large risk of the crop being

unsuccessful. This is an enormous deterrent for farmers, but the authors point out that more

research and knowledge concerning this topic could improve the chances of success.

Additionally, all their claims are supported by evidence and data that can be corroborated by

other sources. For instance, the authors support their claim that local food production has a lower

carbon footprint by referencing a study by Coley et al. that calculated the round-trip distance of a

local food customer to be only 6.7 km, which is significantly less than the distance travelled to

transport most foods to a grocery store. A full list of references used in the paper is provided.

This paper was written to inform farmers of the benefits of introducing native plants to their

fields, educate consumers about the impact of their food purchases, persuade governments to

support local food production, and notify scientists of the need for more research concerning the

benefits, challenges, and implementation of local agriculture and food production. The authors

speak directly to their audience by calling on farmers to incorporate more native crops,

consumers to buy food locally, governments to offer more incentives for shorter field-to-plate

food chains, and scientists to develop more technology and tools to find biological resources that

assist in the development of new crops.

 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.

This paper discusses the climate change mitigation benefits of perennial crops and

agroforestry along with potential challenges of these agricultural practices. The author notes that

agroforestry, which is the incorporation of trees among other crops, along with other mitigation

practices, such as planting perennial staple crops, can increase the rate of carbon sequestration by

5-10 times. These practices can also increase carbon stocks in both the soil and aboveground

biomass. Additionally, the author reviews a number of co-benefits to implementing agroforestry

and perennial crops, such as reduced erosion and nitrogen leaching, greater resilience to extreme

conditions (e.g. droughts), improvement in soil structure and quality, and the requirement of less

fossil fuel inputs. While perennial crops do not yet match the yields of annual crops in colder

climates, tropical perennial staple crops have shown to produce yields similar to annual crops.

Furthermore, intercropping perennials with annuals could potentially result in overyielding, even

in colder climates. The author concludes that the costs and risks of implementing agroforestry

and perennial crops are outweighed by their climate mitigation potential and other co-benefits.

The author of this current 2017 paper is an expert in the fields of regenerative agriculture

and climate change mitigation through land use. Eric Toensmeier is a senior lecturer at the

School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University where he teaches about

agricultural climate change mitigation. He has studied perennial crops and agroforestry for over

two decades and has written several books about these practices. A phone number, email, and

address is provided to contact the author. While the author is partial towards the implementation

of perennial crops and agroforestry in agriculture, he also addresses possible drawbacks to these

practices. For example, Toensmeier mentions that certain climates are not suited for perennial

crops, such as colder climates, while others are not ideal for agroforestry, such as arid climates.
He also notes that the financial cost of establishing these practices tends to be higher than other

regenerative agricultural strategies. Additionally, all the author’s claims are supported by

evidence and data that can be corroborated by other sources. For instance, the author cites a

study by Pimental et al. that found that the conversion of annuals in cropland to perennials

resulted in an increase in habitat for wildlife. Furthermore, he includes data from other sources,

such as a study by Jordan et al. that reported that the amount of erosion and nitrogen leaching

resulting from perennials was less than 5% of those from annual crops. A full list of references

used in the paper is provided. This paper was written to inform farmers of the benefits of

utilizing perennials and agroforestry in cropland, such as climate change mitigation due to

increased carbon sequestration, drought resistance, and decreased erosion and nitrogen leaching.

By highlighting these benefits, he attempts to persuade farmers to implement these practices. In

addition, the author calls out to scientists to expand research on perennial crop yields, a field that

he notes is lacking data, as well as further research on other potential benefits and drawbacks to

these practices. Lastly, Toensmeier speaks to policymakers, encouraging them to provide

incentives to implement regenerative agricultural practices, including Payment for

Environmental Service programs and price and market incentives.

 United States Climate Alliance. (2018, September). From SLCP Challenge to Action.
Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://www.usclimatealliance.org/slcp-challenge-to-
action

This source is the United States Climate Alliance’s roadmap for the organization’s short-

lived climate pollutants (SLCP) challenge. Short-lived climate pollutants, which include

methane, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and black carbon (soot), have immediate impacts on the

climate and are effective in accelerating global warming. The SLCP challenge aims to address

SLCP emissions in order to meet the goals originally set by the Paris Agreement, including

limiting global warming to below 1.5-2 degrees Celsius. The roadmap outlines specific ways to

reduce SLCP emissions across various different sectors, including agriculture, transportation,

waste management, and energy. For example, improving soil health is mentioned as a natural

and working land strategy to lower methane and other greenhouse gas emissions from

agriculture. Additionally, it calls on politicians, businesses, and the rest of the nation to work

towards limiting SLCP emissions, thus leading the way for other countries to follow. The

roadmap encourages efforts and leadership from states due to uncertainty and inaction at the

federal level.

This roadmap was created by the United States Climate Alliance (USCA), a bipartisan

coalition of governors that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit the effects of

climate change and meet the goals outlined by the Paris Agreement. The organization is

dedicated to advocating for actions that can be done to combat climate change, particularly on

the state level. Additionally, the secretariat of the USCA includes experts in the field of climate

change, such as the Executive Director, Julie Cerqueira, a Senior Advisor to the Special Envoy

for Climate Change and a member of the Office of Global Change, as well as the Senior Policy

Advisor, Taryn Finnessey, who served as the Senior Climate Change Specialist for the State of
Colorado. The USCA’s website provides ways to contact the organization. The roadmap was

written in September of 2018, so the information is current and includes science that is up to

date. The USCA does not express a bias in the source, which is based solely on facts and data

that support the claims. Furthermore, the USCA is a bipartisan organization and therefore

refrains from any partiality towards a political party. The source includes a list of references that

were used to support claims. For example, the harmful environmental effects of methane,

including its strong potency compared to carbon dioxide, is corroborated by the 2013

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report. The roadmap was

written for the 24 member states of the USCA along with Puerto Rico to inform them of what

can be done at a state and local level to comply with the SLCP Challenge, which calls on the

states to reduce SLCPs to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement through individual and shared

efforts.
 Wilson, M., & Lovell, S. (2016). Agroforestry—The next step in sustainable and resilient
agriculture. Sustainability, 8(6), 574.

This paper discusses the usage of agroforestry as a sustainable agricultural practice.

Agroforestry is the intentional combination of trees and shrubs with crops or livestock. The

authors compare agroforestry systems with organic farming. Research shows that organic

farming fosters higher biodiversity, better soil quality, and higher water holding capacity than

conventional farming and uses less energy per production unit. However, organic agriculture

tends to produce lower yields, requires tillage for weed control that can lead to soil degradation,

and deals with nutrient leaching, which may also contribute to groundwater pollution. In

comparison, benefits of agroforestry include reductions in nutrient and pesticide runoff, carbon

sequestration, increased soil quality, erosion control, improved wildlife habitat, reduced fossil

fuel use, and increased resilience to extreme climate events. Furthermore, studies have shown

that agroforestry practices can increase crop yields per given area of land, depending on the

mixing of certain species. For example, a study revealed that it would require 47% more land to

grow the same amount of switchgrass and loblolly pine separately than if they were grown

together in an agroforestry system. The authors point out that agroforestry is not only a more

sustainable agricultural system than typical organic or conventional farming, but it is also just as

or even more beneficial economically and in terms of food security. Despite these benefits, the

paper highlights a number of barriers to the adoption of agroforestry systems, such as lack of

knowledge or the expense of establishment, as well as the need for policy changes and further

research.

The authors of this current 2016 paper are experts in the fields of food sustainability,

plant sciences, and agriculture. Both Matthew Heron Wilson and Sarah Taylor Lovell conduct

research at the Plant Sciences Laboratory of the Department of Crop Sciences at the University
of Illinois. The authors’ addresses and emails are provided in the paper for contact. While the

authors are partial towards agroforestry as an agricultural practice, they support all their claims

with data and evidence, and they objectively discuss both the advantages and disadvantages of

agroforestry. For example, they explain that the establishment of an agroforestry system can be

expensive up front, and landowners may not be motivated by long-term or less tangible

outcomes, such as environmental benefits. Furthermore, the authors use evidence and data from a

variety of other sources. They reference many studies throughout the paper to demonstrate the

effects of agroforestry as compared to other farming techniques. For instance, the authors cite a

French study by Dupraz et al. that revealed that an alley cropping agroforestry system that

combined walnuts and winter wheat produced 40% more product per given area than if the two

crops were grown separately. Additionally, a complete list of references used in the paper is

provided. This paper was written to inform farmers of the environmental and economical

benefits of agroforestry practices. The authors also call on policymakers to support increased

funding for government programs that install practices and credits for environmental services

and a policy change that allows for the non-destructive harvest of consumable products from

agroforestry systems, as the current rule states that land set aside for conservation may not be

harvested. Lastly, the authors express the need for further scientific research and studies

concerning the use of trees and shrubs to provide marketable products.

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

This paper discusses the effects of high plant diversity on soil carbon sequestration

during the process of restoring abandoned and degraded grasslands. The authors conducted an

experiment in which different plots of abandoned grassland were planted with 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16

perennial plant species. They then tracked the progress of the plots for 22 years, taking

measurements of soil carbon, root biomass and carbon, and aboveground biomass. The results

showed that the amount of soil and root carbon as well as total biomass increased as plant

diversity increased. Carbon storage rates for the highest diversity plots were 200% greater than at

the time of succession, and these plots stored 178% more soil carbon than the monoculture plots.

The experiment supports the signature of complementarity, in which increased diversity leads to

more plots that exceed the productivity of the best monoculture species. The authors conclude

that utilizing high biodiversity to restore abandoned and degraded lands can be a tool to mitigate

climate change through greater carbon sequestration rates due to increased aboveground and

belowground biomass and carbon storage in high diversity plots.

The authors of this current 2019 paper are experts in the fields of ecological restoration

and sustainable agriculture. Yi Yang is a researcher at the Institute on the Environment at the

University of Minnesota and has previously worked for the EPA. David Tilman is Regents’

Professor and McKnight Presidential Chair in Ecology at the University of Minnesota. An email

and address is provided to contact the authors. The authors are objective in their analysis of the

results of their study and discuss the possible issues and limitations of their experiment. For

example, they point out that their study did not take into consideration the effect that factors such

as weeding, soil type, or the use of native plants may have on carbon sequestration rates. They

also note that diversity may not have the same effects on sequestration as shown in the study in
different climates or for different types of land. Additionally, all the authors’ claims are

supported by evidence and data that can be corroborated by other sources. For instance, the

authors cite a source by Dijkstra et al. that discusses other environmental benefits of high

diversity land restoration, such as reduced nitrogen leaking. Furthermore, they include data from

other sources, such as a study by Sanderman et al. that reported that about 133 Gt of soil carbon

has been released into the atmosphere since the beginning of agriculture, which has the potential

to be sequestered back into the soil. A full list of references used in the paper is provided. This

paper was written to inform farmers and other people who are interested in restoring degraded

and/ or abandoned agricultural lands of the environmental benefits of incorporating a high

diversity of plant species. The authors appeal to farmers by emphasizing the positive impacts of

biodiversity on overall productivity and ecosystem health. Additionally, the authors call on

scientists to expand on their experiment and conduct studies on the influence of climate, soil

type, and plant functional traits on carbon sequestration rates for the restoration process of

abandoned grasslands.