Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agee

A synthesis of the effect of regenerative agriculture on soil carbon

sequestration in Southeast Asian croplands
Stanley S.X. Tan a, b, *, Sara E. Kuebbing b
a
Yale-NUS College, 138527, Singapore
b
The Forest School at the Yale School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Policymakers and businesses in Southeast Asia are increasingly interested in using carbon markets to encourage
Regenerative agriculture adoption of regenerative agriculture practices by farmers. These practices are thought to mitigate climate change
Climate change by reducing soil carbon loss and enhancing soil carbon sequestration. However, there is uncertainty in the ability
Soil carbon sequestration
of regenerative agriculture practices to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks of croplands. We reviewed 92
Greenhouse gas emissions
empirical studies that investigated the effects of 17 regenerative farming practices across 11 broad categories of
crops on SOC stock or content in Southeast Asia. Our synthesis found supporting evidence for the use of organic
amendments like biochar, compost, and manure, as well as cover cropping, crop rotation, and conservation
tillage to increase SOC. However, studies for practices like addition of compost and manure reported increases in
greenhouse gas emissions like methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), demonstrating that increases in SOC may
be offset by increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Only a few studies measured both the changes in SOC stocks
and greenhouse gas emissions and none of the studies completed full greenhouse gas inventories. Estimating the
net impact of SOC gains and increase of greenhouse gas emissions will be necessary to understand the overall
effect of practices like compost, manure and crop residue incorporation on net atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations. If these practices are implemented for soil carbon projects, practitioners should anticipate in­
creases in greenhouse gas emissions from soils and implement additional practices, such as alternate wetting and
drying, to optimize the climate change mitigation effects of regenerative agriculture. We encourage future
research on practices, such as agroforestry and changes in crop residue management, where there are few studies
and little variation in experimental design and environmental conditions. Given the interest in scaling up
regenerative agriculture through voluntary carbon markets to boost SOC stocks in croplands, policymakers and
businesses can support research in this area by making field-collected data from their projects accessible to
researchers to further the study of the impact of these practices across different abiotic conditions and soil
managements. This data sharing would alleviate the paucity and improve the quality of empirical data on
regenerative agricultural practices in Southeast Asian croplands, facilitate practice-specific meta-analyses, and
help to optimize climate change mitigation effects of regenerative agriculture.

1. Introduction
Southeast Asia is a major global producer and exporter of food crops
and commodities. The region’s food production systems are vital to
regional and global food security. From 2011–2020, the region exported
nearly 519 million tonnes of rice produced from its paddies, accounting
for over a quarter of the world’s production of rice (Fig. 1, FAO, 2022).
At the same time, Southeast Asian croplands emit significant amounts of
greenhouse gases (Couwenberg et al., 2010; Lamb et al., 2021). In
particular, the region contributed 14.94 Pg C, comprising 78% of the
total terrestrial carbon emissions from Asia, from 1901 to 2005 (Tao
et al., 2013).
Despite their importance to regional and global food security,
Southeast Asia’s croplands are increasingly stressed by population
growth, climate change, and declining soil health. First, population
growth, especially of middle-class families, is expected to continue in the
region, which will likely increase food consumption and demand
(Schneider et al., 2011). Next, climate change is stressing the region’s
croplands and threatening the region’s ability to meet regional and
global food demand (Lin et al., 2022; Yuan et al., 2022). As global

* Corresponding author at: Yale-NUS College, 138527, Singapore.

E-mail address: stanley.tan@u.yale-nus.edu.sg (S.S.X. Tan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2023.108450
Received 28 December 2022; Received in revised form 15 February 2023; Accepted 28 February 2023
Available online 7 March 2023
0167-8809/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
average temperatures rise, the frequency, intensity, and magnitude of
extreme weather events increase (IPCC, 2022). These extreme weather
events and changing climate patterns lead to more crop failures as a
result of heat stress, water stress, and increased pest movement (Bebber
et al., 2013; Challinor et al., 2010). Finally, the region’s croplands have
suffered from declining soil fertility as a result of conventional farming
production systems. In Southeast Asia, a prominent change in agricul­
ture production systems is the demise of swidden agriculture replaced by
intensive agriculture (Dressler et al., 2017). While swidden agriculture
typically allowed croplands to rest in fallow periods, intensive agricul­
tural practices shorten or remove fallow periods. The shift increases
cropland production but also depletes soil nutrients that are no longer
replenished during fallow cycles (Bruun et al., 2013). The three chal­
lenges threaten regional and global food security, and can drive farmers
and agriculture industries to increase the conversion of existing eco­
systems, like mature forests, into croplands to mitigate declining crop
yields and meet food demand. This land-use change releases more car­
bon emissions into the atmosphere, creating a positive feedback loop as
rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere fuel global
warming (Bajželj and Richards, 2014).
Regenerative agriculture practices are a potential solution to the
regional agricultural challenges and can offer climate change adaptation
and potential mitigation benefits (Committee on Developing a Research
Agenda for Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration, 2019;
Jordon et al., 2022; Schulte et al., 2021; Toensmeier, 2016). According
to Project Drawdown, regenerative agriculture practices are practices
that improve soil productivity and health by restoring soil organic
Fig. 1. From 2011–2020, Southeast Asia produced nearly a third of the total amount of rice grown in Asia’s rice paddies and 25% of the global rice production
(FAO, 2022).
2
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
carbon (SOC) content (Drawdown, n.d.). Examples include implement­
ing agroforestry and cover cropping. Besides increasing SOC, regener­
ative agriculture practices are also expected to restore soil fertility,
increase crop yield, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from crop­
lands (Committee on Developing a Research Agenda for Carbon Dioxide
Removal and Reliable Sequestration, 2019; Schulte et al., 2021). Soil
organic C is a parameter of interest in regenerative agriculture as soils
are a major source and sink of atmospheric carbon and SOC is an indi­
cator of soil health and crop yield (Oldfield et al., 2019). There are many
other potential benefits of regenerative agriculture practices, including
the restoration of critical ecosystem services and biodiversity (Schreefel
et al., 2020; Wurz et al., 2022).
Regenerative agriculture has garnered the interest and attention of
policymakers, farmers, and investors in Southeast Asia for its potential
to address climate change and food security. Policymakers in the region
are considering the use of agricultural lands to meet their national
determined contributions (NDCs) by directly reducing overall green­
house gas emissions from agricultural lands as well as enhancing carbon
sequestration (Crumpler et al., 2020). Future national and regional
policies will likely focus on scaling up regenerative agriculture. More­
over, business investors see potential profits arising from partnering
with farmers in agricultural carbon projects, which typically pay farmers
to adopt regenerative practices to reduce farm emissions and increase
cropland SOC storage (Hardcastle et al., 2022). The amount of emissions
avoided or carbon sequestered through the project is measured and
compared with that from the baseline scenario without the project,
generating a number of carbon credits (Broekhoff et al., 2019). These
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
policies and investments are expected to facilitate the scaling up of
regenerative agriculture in the region but require accurate estimates of
the impact of any given regenerative agriculture practice relative to a
‘baseline’ or ‘business-as-usual’ practice (Fig. 2).
The growing interest in regenerative agriculture is challenged by
scientific uncertainty about the effects of regenerative agricultural
practices on SOC. Specifically, some argue that the ability of regenera­
tive practices to sequester additional carbon from the atmosphere into
the soil remains largely uncertain and overstated (World Resources
Institute, 2020; Powlson et al., 2020). Other researchers argue that
empirical evidence supports the potential of certain regenerative agri­
culture practices, like tillage reduction and cover cropping, to contribute
significantly to climate change mitigation (Paustian et al., 2020). The
uncertainty in the ability of regenerative agriculture practices to miti­
gate climate change is driven chiefly by the paucity of large-scale and
long-term verifiable observations of the management effects of these
practices on SOC (Bradford et al., 2019). This paucity is especially true
for Southeast Asia. For instance, a meta-analysis mapping the spatial
distribution of conservation agriculture practices, a suite of practices to
protect farmland soils and prevent soil erosion, found that national-level
data suitable for analysis was missing for all countries in Southeast Asia
and thus excluded the region from the analysis (Prestele et al., 2018).
Other syntheses and reviews tend to focus on greenhouse gas emissions,
but not SOC stocks, within rice paddies in the region (Hussain et al.,
2015; Linquist et al., 2012; Sanchis et al., 2012; Yagi et al., 2020). Thus,
a review of what is currently known about the impact of the variety of
regenerative agricultural practices on SOC stocks and greenhouse gas
Fig. 2. Predicted population growth trajectory by United Nations for Southeast Asia. The population is expected to continue rising and will likely peak around 2063
(UN, 2022).
3
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
emissions would allow for an assessment of where to direct research
needs and how to fill data gaps.
Here, we review empirical data on the effects of regenerative agri­
cultural practices on SOC sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions in
Southeast Asian agroecosystems. Our review defines regenerative agri­
culture practices as those that restore soil fertility (measured by gains in
SOC) and mitigate climate change (measured by an increase in SOC
sequestration and/or reduction of greenhouse gas emissions). Our study
aims to address this gap of knowledge by answering the following
questions:
• What are the key regenerative agriculture practices and crops
empirically studied in Southeast Asian countries for SOC sequestra­
tion or greenhouse gas emission reduction?
• What are the broad directions in the reported effects of these prac­
tices on SOC and greenhouse gas emissions?
• What are the key uncertainties and limitations in the empirical
evidence?
2. Methods
2.1. Literature search
To examine the effects of regenerative agriculture on soil carbon
sequestration, we looked for studies that measured changes in SOC stock
or content or other similar soil carbon parameters (such as total soil
carbon or labile carbon). For greenhouse gases, we considered carbon
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450

dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous dioxide (N2O) emissions. the following Web of Science filters: books and conference proceedings,
These three gases are the most abundant greenhouse gases associated non-English language papers, and those not based geographically in
with agricultural land use (USDA, 2022). We selected relevant search Southeast Asia. We identified 953 articles through this initial search and
terms for regenerative agriculture practices from prior analyses of key used Web of Science filters to select 846 studies that were based in
regenerative agriculture practices associated with climate change miti­ Southeast Asia (Figs. 3, 4).
gation (Bossio et al., 2020; Lal, 2004a, 2004b; Mikolajczyk, 2021; Smith
et al., 2008). These terms were also derived from insights from con­
2.2. Literature selection
versations with farmers in Southeast Asia who practice a broad range of
sustainable or regenerative soil-based farming methods.
From this original search, we reviewed the titles and abstracts of the
We used a systematic literature review to identify and analyze rele­
846 papers and excluded studies that were reviews or meta-analyses
vant papers. We searched the database Web of Science (Clarivate) in
(n = 12), did not involve a change in agricultural practice (n = 94),
July 2022 for studies that empirically examined the impacts of regen­
did not empirically measure changes in SOC or greenhouse gas emis­
erative agriculture practices in Southeast Asia’s croplands. We used the
sions (n = 17), were not focused on regenerative agriculture or soil
following topic search terms: “agroforestry OR organic agricult* OR
carbon (n = 601), or were book chapters (n = 2; Fig. 3). This reduced
natural farming OR regenerative agricult* OR permacult* OR agronomy
our search to 120 papers (Fig. 3). We read the full text of these papers
OR agronomic OR biochar OR soil amend* OR manure OR compost OR
and selected those that met the following criteria: (i) empirically
rice intensification OR intercrop* OR crop diversif* OR no-till OR no
measured the change in SOC and/or greenhouse gas emissions (CH4,
till* OR crop rotation OR cover crops AND soil organic carbon OR soil
N2O, CO2) and (ii) had a clearly defined change in farming practice (i.e.
carbon OR soil organic matter OR soil matter OR soil biomass OR
a shift away from a conventional farming practice that is explicitly
greenhouse gas OR carbon dioxide OR methane OR nitrous oxide AND
stated). We excluded the studies that were duplicates (n = 9), did not
southeast*asia, Singapore OR Malaysia OR Indonesia OR Thailand OR
have a relevant baseline (n = 16), did not involve a relevant change in
Cambodia OR Vietnam OR Viet Nam OR Laos OR Philippines OR Brunei
agricultural practices (n = 4), did not measure a relevant parameter
OR Timor-Leste OR Myanmar OR Burma. Our search was not date-
(n = 2), or studies that were reviews or meta-analyses (n = 4; Fig. 3).
restricted, but we excluded the following types of publications using
We found 85 papers from our original search that met these criteria. We

Fig. 3. PRISMA Flow chart for systematic literature review process.

4
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450

Fig. 4. Geographical distribution of the 92 empirical studies included in this review. Initials denote the name of the country followed by the number of empirical
studies based in the country in parentheses. Countries with a darker shading have a higher number of studies. Country abbreviations: Thailand (TH), Vietnam (VN),
Indonesia (IN), the Philippines (PH), Cambodia (CA), Malaysia (MA), Laos (LA), Myanmar (MY). We found no studies for Singapore (SG), Brunei (BR), and Timor
Leste (TL). Some of the studies were conducted in more than one country.

reviewed the sources cited in these 85 publications and identified seven
additional papers that also met these criteria but were not found in the
original search. The final number of papers for analysis was 92 (Fig. 3).
2.3. Regenerative Ag practice and study crop compilation
For each of the 92 papers selected, we compiled the following in­
formation: the study site’s country, the study crop, SOC stock or content
and/or greenhouse emissions (flux or cumulative), and the pair of
practices or treatments compared. Some studies have multiple treat­
ments and when no one particular treatment is established as the control
or reference, all treatments are evaluated as the ’baseline’. Several
practices had limited studies and hence, our synthesis only focused on
practices (referred to as ‘Key Practices’) that had four or more studies.
We grouped these practices into eleven broad categories, described in
Table 1).
We found studies on a variety of major Southeast Asian crop types
including cacao (Theobroma cacao), cassava (Manihot esculenta), maize
or corn (Zea mays), oil palm (Elaeis guineensis), rice (Oryza sativa), and
sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum; Fig. 5). We found fewer publications
for many other crops and thus we grouped these crops into the following
categories for brevity: spices (no particular plant species mentioned),
legumes (soybean [Glycine max], peanut [Arachis hypogaea], pole sitao
or cowpea [Vigna unguiculata], or chickpea [Cicer arietinum]), fruits
(watermelon [Citrullus lanatus], cucumber [Cucumis sativus], pineapple
[Ananas comosus], sweet pepper [Capsicum annuum], strawberry [Fra­
garia spp.], and gourds [Cucurbitaceae]) (Fig. 5).
For the outcomes reported from the studies, we used the statistical
software R (R Core Team 2022, v 1.4.1087) to analyze the data. We used
the Tidyverse (Wickham et al., 2019, v 1.3.0) and Magrittr (Bache and
Wickham, 2020, v2.0.1) packages for analyzing the reported outcomes
of the practices on soil carbon, greenhouse gas emissions, and depth of
soil samples taken. When analyzing each study, we classified the studies
to be either positive, negative, or inconclusive. Studies that are classified
as (i) positive report only or mostly results indicating an increase in SOC
and/or decrease in greenhouse gas emissions; (ii) as negative report only
or mostly decrease in SOC and/or increase in greenhouse gas emis­
sions; or (iii) inconclusive when there is no change in SOC and/or
greenhouse gas emissions or when the positive and negative results are
somewhat equal.

5
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
Table 1
List of regenerative agriculture practices, broad definitions of these practices,
and the total number of empirical studies for each practice. Note that some
studies have more than one practice each and studies might appear in different
practices. Practices with four or more studies were used for synthesis with the
exception of irrigation regime and integrated nutrient management.
Practice Broad Definition for Analysis
Agroforestry Planting of perennial trees or shrubs in
croplands alongside crops
Biochar Adding residue from organic matter that
has undergone pyrolysis
Compost Adding a mixture of organic matter that has
undergone decomposition
Conservation A term that refers to a combination of
Agriculture reduced/zero-tillage, planting of cover
crops, and diversification of crops (either
crop rotation or intercropping)
Cover Crops Plants that are planted to cover the soil
Crop Rotation Planting different plants over time in the
same area
Improved Seed Planting higher-yielding varieties or
Variety varieties that are more resilient to extreme
weather conditions/pests
Integrated Nutrient A change in nutrient input in terms of
Management source, rate, timing and placement
Intercropping Planting a different plant species among
other plants, usually in between rows
Irrigation Regime A change in irrigation or water
management practices, often from
continuously flooding to alternate flooding
Manure Application of animal dung that is typically
used as fertilizer
Organic Farming Farming approach that reduces or avoids
using synthetic chemicals
Residue Management Change in management of crop residues by
returning residues back to the soil instead
of removing them
Shifting Cultivation Shifting area of cultivation and allowing
and Fallow currently used area to replenish itself with
nutrients by laying fallow
System of Rice Approach that raises the yield from rice
Intensification croplands by changing the irrigation
regime, seed planting techniques and other
aspects
Till Regime A change in tillage practices, often from
tillage to conservation tillage (minimum or
zero tillage)
Transplanting to Transplanting: moving one plant from one
Direct Seeding location (often from the seedling or sapling
stage) to another location for maturation.
Direct seeding: seeds establish and mature
at one location
3. Synthesis
The distribution of crops in the studies was heavily skewed towards
the more widely grown crops in the region. Rice was the focal crop in
nearly three-quarters of the reviewed studies (n = 66) and studies of
maize (n = 19) and legumes (n = 11) each comprised a little over 20%
and 10% of the total studies, respectively (Fig. 5). We present the total
number of studies across countries (Fig. 4), and the summary tables of
the distribution of practices across studies (Table 1), practices by
country (I Table S1), crops by country (SI Table 2), and crops by prac­
tices (SI Tables 3 and 4) in the Supplementary Information. Some studies
considered more than one practice, study crop, or took place in multiple
countries.
3.1. Key practices
For each practice, we describe the distribution of crops and countries
in the studies for that particular practice, the experimental designs of the
studies, broad patterns in results, and contextualize the empirical
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
evidence for Southeast Asian croplands in the broader scientific litera­
ture often with reviews and meta-analyses that are based in other
geographic regions or biomes.
3.1.1. Agroforestry
Agroforestry refers to land-use systems where woody perennials
Number of (trees, shrubs, palms, bamboo, etc.) are intentionally used on croplands
Studies
(FAO, n.d.). Agroforestry brings many benefits and ecosystem services,
4 such as improved water and air quality, soil enrichment, and biodiver­
sity conservation (Jose, 2009). Prior research suggests that agroforestry
10
increases soil carbon sequestration by enhancing nutrient and water
13 intake efficiencies, reducing nutrient leaching to groundwater and soil
erosion, and improving soil’s physical and biological properties (Abbas
1 et al., 2017; Cardoso et al., 2017; Karuru et al., 2021; Management of
agroforestry systems for enhancing resource use efficiency and crop pro­
ductivity, 2009; Muchane et al., 2020; Ramachandran Nair et al., 2009).
4 While the effects of agroforestry on plant shoot and root biomass carbon
8 have been studied (Zomer et al., 2016), few studies focus on the effects
on soil carbon in Southeast Asia. A global meta-analysis on the effects of
4
agroforestry on soil carbon included only two studies in Indonesia out of
a total of 52 studies (De Stefano and Jacobson, 2017). Likewise, a review
28 on tropical agroforestry carbon sequestration did not include any studies
from the region (Albrecht and Kandji, 2003). Finally, a global
1
meta-analysis of 76 studies, five of which were based in Indonesia and
25
Malaysia, found that home garden agroforestry systems sequestered
more soil carbon compared to conventional croplands due to higher tree
density and leaf litter production (Shi et al., 2018). While these global
20 reviews largely agree that agroforestry can enhance SOC stocks, they
also demonstrate the wide variation in the impact of the practice glob­
4
ally. This underlines the need for more studies in Southeast Asia on
12 agroforestry.
Our synthesis suggests that agroforestry tree planting can enhance
SOC in croplands. We found three studies in Indonesia (n = 2 for cacao,
5
n = 1 for maize) and one study in Malaysia on palm oil (SI Table 3). Two
of the four studies found that agroforestry enhanced soil carbon
2 sequestration (Dechert et al., 2004; Wartenberg et al., 2020) while the
other two studies were inconclusive (Besar et al., 2020; Utomo et al.,
2016) (Fig. 6). Dechert et al. (2004) found that maize monocultures had
12 lower soil carbon stocks (90 Mg C ha-1) relative to agroforestry plots
where maize grew intermixed with coffee (Coffea spp.) or cacao (94 Mg
C ha-1). The difference suggests the coffee trees prevented the decline of
3 SOC caused by continuous cultivation of maize (Dechert et al., 2004).
Wartenberg et al. (2020) found that agroforestry croplands with cacao
growing under the shade of the nitrogen-fixing Gliricidia sepium tree and
the fruit-producing rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum) trees had 6%
higher SOC than cacao plots without tree canopy and shade. It is theo­
rized that the trees increased organic litter input into soils, buffered soil
microclimates under tree shade, and increased root activity and litter
decomposition rates, which led to increased SOC (Wartenberg et al.,
2020).
However, the effects of agroforestry on SOC depend on the choice of
trees. Utomo et al. (2016) compared cocoa monocultures to cocoa
agroforestry croplands planted with either the economically-important
rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) or fruit-bearing coconut (Cocos nucifera)
trees. The study found that the cocoa-coconut agroforestry plot had
higher SOC content (>9 g C per kg soil) than cocoa monocultures while
the cocoa-rubber plots had similar SOC content with (< 9 g C per kg soil)
the cocoa monoculture. The authors hypothesized that higher amounts
of leaf litter and slower decomposition effects of coconut trees relative to
the rubber trees were responsible for the increase in SOC content in the
cocoa-coconut plots (Utomo et al., 2016).
Although agroforestry has been practiced for centuries in Indonesia
by smallholder farmers (Dhyani et al., 2021; Park et al., 2022), this
practice has not been widely adopted by commercialized agricultural
industries like the palm oil industry that is rapidly expanding in
Malaysia and Indonesia (Shin et al., 2020). Prior research has
6
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
Fig. 5. In a review of 92 studies on the impact of regenerative agricultural practices on soil organic carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions in Southeast Asian
croplands, three-quarters of empirical studies (n = 66) focused on rice production in paddies. Because some studies examined more than one crop the sum of bars is
greater than the number of studies.
emphasized the potential benefits of implementing agroforestry in palm
oil plantations, such as enhancing groundwater replenishment and
lowering plantation sensitivity to palm oil price uncertainty (Khasanah
and van Noordwijk, 2019; Purwanto et al., 2020). Despite these benefits,
we only found a single study on palm oil agroforestry. In a study of palm
oil agroforestry with agarwood (Aquilaria malaccensis), Besar et al.
(2020) found mixed results depending on the age of the palm oil trees
and age of the agarwood plantings. The authors found that 16-year and
six-year-old palm oil monoculture plantations had greater soil carbon
stocks (43.09 ± 2.02 Mg C ha-1, 45.46 ± 9.64 Mg C ha-1, respectively)
than two of three palm oil agroforestry plantations (first: palm oil for 27
years combined with agarwood for seven years, 41.06 ± 2.82 Mg C ha-1;
second: palm oil for 17 years combined with agarwood for five years,
39.12 ± 3.99 Mg C ha-1). However, the third agroforestry plantation
(palm oil for 20 years combined with agarwood for seven years) had the
highest soil carbon stocks (49.75 ± 2.33 Mg C ha-1). The differences in
land use and soil management, specifically the age of palm oil planta­
tions and the duration of agroforestry, could have contributed to the
mixed effects on SOC (Besar et al., 2020). While implementing agro­
forestry in commercial palm oil operations may have multiple benefits,
there is currently very limited and mixed evidence supporting positive
agroforestry effects on SOC.
Inconclusive studies like Besar et al. (2020) and Utomo et al. (2016)
are not uncommon in the agroforestry literature. Prior reviews of
agroforestry found that the use of different tree species, different study
site climates and land use history, all drive variations in observed out­
comes of agroforestry on SOC stocks in Southeast Asia and the tropics
7
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
(Muchane et al., 2020; Ramachandran Nair et al., 2009). We suggest that
future studies in Southeast Asia compare the impact of multiple poten­
tial tree species across multiple sites and disentangle the impacts of
historical and present land use management practices, and of
species-specific effects on soil carbon. More studies would allow for a
richer synthesis of the impacts of agroforestry across different abiotic
conditions and land use management patterns in Southeast Asia, facili­
tating specific recommendations for promoting agroforestry practices
for climate change mitigation.
Policymakers have expressed interest in expanding agroforestry
practices in Southeast Asian croplands as a means of increasing food
security, mitigating climate change, and meeting Sustainable Develop­
ment Goals (ASEAN, 2015; Park et al., 2022). However, Southeast Asian
countries are currently unable to reliably measure agroforestry carbon
stocks owing to insufficient data and inconsistent methods for mea­
surements of parameters like soil bulk density and standardization of the
limited available data into easily accessible databases (Besar et al., 2020;
Dhyani et al., 2021,). These scientific and data gaps prevent countries
from accessing international funding to support the development of
agroforestry practices and reporting carbon benefits of existing agro­
forestry systems to national reporting efforts to the UNFCCC (Dhyani
et al., 2021). There is a clear need for more extensive and targeted
research on the impacts of agroforestry practices in the region.
3.1.2. Biochar
Biochar is the product of organic matter that has undergone pyrol­
ysis, or decomposition through high temperatures. Biochar application
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
can improve soil carbon sequestration through a ‘negative priming ef­
fect’ of soil microorganisms (Li et al., 2021). Negative priming happens
when soil microorganisms access biochar carbon and microbial respi­
ration of dissolved soil organic matter is prevented, or when biochar
provides physical protection to carbon molecules from microbial
decomposition (Liang et al., 2010; Zimmerman and Ouyang, 2019).
Biochar application, therefore, can decrease soil carbon mineralization
rates and increase SOC stocks over time (Li et al., 2021; Liang et al.,
2010). There are several reviews on the effects of biochar on greenhouse
gas emissions. He et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis and found that
biochar application significantly increased soil CO2 fluxes by 22.14%,
decreased N2O fluxes by 30.92%, and did not affect CH4 fluxes.
Conversely, Zhang et al. (2020) meta-analysis found that biochar
application significantly increased CH4 and CO2 emissions by an average
of 15% and 16%, respectively, while decreasing nitrous oxide emissions
by an average of N2O. Lastly, a meta-analysis of biochar in Southeast
Asia rice paddies found that biochar reduced CH4 and N2O emissions by
20% (Yagi et al., 2020). The contradictory results from these global-level
studies necessitate a sub-region-level review of the impacts of biochar
application on soil aggregation and soil carbon as well as greenhouse gas
emissions (Li et al., 2021).
Out of ten studies on biochar, seven were on rice and three were on
maize (SI Table 3). All five studies that measured changes in SOC re­
ported biochar application increased SOC compared to the application
of synthetic (or chemical) fertilizers (Fig. 6). However, the studies varied
in the biochar treatments. Three studies included synthetic fertilizer
application with the biochar treatment (Doan et al., 2021; Ngo et al.,
2014; Simarani et al., 2018) while two studies applied biochar alone
(Sriphirom et al., 2021, 2020). Seven studies examined the effects of
8
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
Fig. 6. Studies on the addition of biochar,
compost, manure, as well as cover cropping,
crop rotations, and conservation tillage (till
regime) were consistently more likely to report
net gains in soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks
with practices implementation. We scored
studies as positive (green) if they reported only
or mostly increase and negative (red) reported
only or mostly decrease in SOC. If a study re­
ported mixed results, with an even balance be­
tween increase and decrease in SOC, we
deemed the study inconclusive (yellow).
biochar application on CH4 emissions and only two of these measured
nitrous oxide emissions (Fig. 6). Six out of seven studies reported that
biochar application reduced CH4 emissions (Fig. 7) while one study re­
ported a reduction in nitrous oxide emissions (Fig. 7).
Across the studies, the control (or reference) treatments varied. For
reference treatments, two studies considered the burning of rice straw
and incorporation of the residual ash as the reference treatment (Jak­
rawatana et al., 2019; Mohammadi et al., 2016) while the remaining five
studies used the synthetic fertilizer application as the reference treat­
ments (Doan et al., 2021; Pandey et al., 2014; Sriphirom et al., 2021,
2020; Trinh et al., 2017; Vu et al., 2015). Although the studies varied in
their biochar and control treatments, they largely found that biochar
application decreased CH4 emissions relative to their respective control
treatments (Fig. 7, SI Table 5). We can then have confidence that biochar
application is a promising practice to reduce CH4 across a range of
alternative conditions and biochar treatments. However, these differ­
ences in biochar treatments (use of fertilizers or rice straw ash with
biochar versus biochar only) may lead to differences in the magnitude of
increase in SOC, given that both rice straw (ash) and chemical fertilizers
have been found to boost SOC through various biogeochemical pro­
cesses (Bhattacharyya et al., 2012; Brar et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2022).
Therefore, it will be useful to investigate the magnitude of CH4
reduction between reference and biochar treatments. In particular,
synthetic fertilizers can affect the composition of soil microbial com­
munities, especially methanogen bacteria that generate CH4 and meth­
anotrophs that capture CH4 for oxidation (Shrestha et al., 2010; Yuan
et al., 2018). Moreover, it is suggested that the physicochemical prop­
erties of biochar, soil properties, and rate of application influence the
effects of biochar on soil carbon (Liu et al., 2019). A current
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450

Fig. 7. Studies on the addition of biochar to croplands consistently reported decreased methane emissions from the practice while studies on the addition of compost,
manure, or crop residues consistently reported increases in methane and nitrous oxide emissions. We scored studies as positive (green) if they reported only or mostly
decreases and negative (red) if they reported only or mostly increases in greenhouse gas emissions. If a study reported mixed results, with an even balance between
increase and decrease in methane and/or nitrous oxide, we deemed the study inconclusive (yellow).

meta-analysis on the effects of biochar on rice paddies in Southeast Asia
was limited in testing for the impact of reference and biochar treatments
on greenhouse gas emissions (Yagi et al., 2020). Thus, future syntheses
should consider variations in experimental designs and units of mea­
surements, but currently there are insufficient studies to do so (Fig. 8).
3.1.3. Compost
Adding compost, which is usually derived from decomposed plant
organic matter, may increase soil carbon through enhanced soil aggre­
gation and increased organic matter addition (Gregorich et al., 2001;
Lal, 2004b). We found ten studies on compost addition to croplands in
Vietnam (n = 4), Thailand (n = 5), Indonesia (n = 1), Laos (n = 1),
Malaysia (n = 1), and Myanmar (n = 1; SI Table 1). Study crops
included rice (n = 5), maize (n = 4) and palm oil (n = 1; SI Table 3).
All seven studies on SOC found that compost addition increased SOC
(Fig. 6). For example, Doan et al. (2021) found soil carbon content
increased between 5.5% and 35.3% in maize plots that received compost
amendments relative to control plots with only synthetic fertilizer
addition in Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam. Results from compost addition
studies in Southeast Asia align with other empirical studies from other
regions. A study on vegetable farming in loamy sands soils in California,
USA, found that compost increased mean SOC stocks by an average of
9.4 Mg ha-1 over six years (White et al., 2020). A long-term study based
in tropical rice fields of Cuttack, India, with sandy clay loam soils found
that the addition of compost enhanced soil carbon stocks (Nayak et al.,
2009).
The studies in our synthesis on the impact of compost amendments
on SOC stocks used different compost treatments. More than half of the
studies (4 of 7) compared compost amendments to synthetic fertilizer
application (Doan et al., 2021; Jouquet et al., 2010; Ngo et al., 2014;
Sugino et al., 2013) (SI Table 5). One study compared SOC stocks in
croplands that received low or high amounts of compost and synthetic
fertilizers (Jaiarree et al., 2014). Another study measured how SOC
stock changed over time as compost is applied over several years
(Minasny et al., 2011). Some of the compost treatments (n = 3) used
only compost and/or vermicompost (use of earthworms to develop
compost; Jakrawatana et al., 2019; Ngo et al., 2014; Win et al., 2021)
while the majority of the studies combined compost and/or vermicom­
post with synthetic fertilizers (SI Table 1). Similar to the studies on
biochar, differences in compost treatments did not lead to different

9
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
directions of effects on SOC (most increased SOC), but different compost
treatments will likely vary in the magnitude of the increase in soil car­
bon sequestration. However, given these differences in experimental
designs and units of measurements, there need to be more empirical
studies with data that can be harmonized for quantification of the im­
pacts of compost application on SOC across different compost and
control treatments.
Despite the positive outcomes for SOC, four out of seven studies on
CH4 in our synthesis found that the use of compost led to increases in
CH4 (Fig. 7). However, only one of these four studies also measured
changes in soil carbon (Jaiarree et al., 2014), which restricts our ability
to assess the relative impact of compost on soil carbon versus CH4 gas
emissions. One study in the rice paddies of Myanmar found that compost
application increased CH4 emissions (0.951 g CH4 kg-1 soil) as compared
to the application of biochar (0.808 g CH4 kg-1 soil) or the control (no
application of compost or biochar: 0.893 g CH4 kg-1 soil; Win et al.,
2021). Increase in these greenhouse gases may be attributed to how soil
microbial communities respond to the addition of organic amendments
like compost (Thangarajan et al., 2013). Consequently, larger CH4
emissions after compost addition suggests that gains in SOC stocks could
potentially be offset by increases in CH4 emissions, a greenhouse gas
with strong global warming potential (Boucher et al., 2009). Future
studies should consider the effect of compost and organic amendments
on the net overall global warming potential of agriculture by investi­
gating trade-offs between gains in soil carbon and increases in green­
house gas emissions.
The potential for compost addition to increase greenhouse gas
emissions through compost application aligns with findings from other
studies outside of Southeast Asia. A study in tropical Australian banana
and papaya groves found compost application led to increased carbon
10
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
Fig. 8. Distribution of the soil sampling depth
of studies. The sampling depth of each study is
represented by a line bounded by 2 points of the
same colour. Some studies stratified their sam­
ples into different depths (e.g. 0–10 cm and
10–30 cm). For these studies, the sampling
depth is represented by multiple lines and
points of the same colour (e.g. one for 0–10 cm
and another for 10–30 cm), and these lines and
points are adjacent to each other as well as
linked diagonally to illustrate the stratification.
Most studies have a depth profile that is above
the red line (y = 30 cm). Studies that go beyond
(or deeper than) the 30 cm mark are mostly
studies that stratify the depths of samples taken,
and these samples are labeled with their prac­
tice(s).
dioxide emissions, which they suggested was driven by an increase in
labile carbon for microbial processing (Bass et al., 2016). However, a
life-cycle analysis derived contrasting results, reporting a reduction in
CH4 emissions with a concomitant increase in soil carbon from adding
compost (Jeong et al., 2019). Another study found that the use of
compost (as well as animal manure) had positive effects on soil carbon
and minimal effects on carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and CH4 emis­
sions, which contrasts with the studies we found for greenhouse gases
(Ginting et al., 2003). Given the conflicting results, more research is
needed to identify the factors, such as soil properties and soil manage­
ment strategies, that determine the effects of compost on greenhouse gas
emissions and SOC.
3.1.4. Cover crops
Cover cropping is the act of planting non-crop plants to cover soils
that are typically sitting fallow. It is widely recommended as deterrence
against soil erosion and loss of soil carbon. This is because a cover crop’s
roots can anchor and stabilize soil, create soil aggregates, and increase
carbon inputs from root and shoot cover crop residues. These changes to
the soils can lead to increased uptake of available nitrogen and
decreased nitrous oxide and CH4 emissions (Kaye and Quemada, 2017;
Lal, 2015). Because cover cropping can decrease erosion and improve
soil fertility and health, it also has been suggested as an important
practice for adaptation to future climate risks (Kaye and Quemada,
2017). Prior meta-analyses report that, on average, cover crops can in­
crease SOC stocks relative to fields without cover crops by 12% in
temperate croplands (McClelland et al., 2021) and by 15.5% in global
croplands (Jian et al., 2020). These meta-analyses, however, are domi­
nated by empirical results in temperate croplands and contain few
studies from Southeast Asia, restricting our ability to extrapolate to
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
tropical Southeast Asian agroecosystems. We found studies on cover
cropping in Cambodia (n = 1), Indonesia (n = 1), Laos (n = 1), and the
Philippines (n = 1; SI Table 1). Study crops include fruits (n = 1), le­
gumes (n = 2), maize (n = 1), rice (n = 2), and vegetables (n = 1; SI
Table 3).
We found all four studies on soil carbon reported gains when cover
crops were planted in Southeast Asian croplands relative to fields
without cover crops (Fig. 6). Although the studies varied in the location,
the type of crop and cover crop, and the timing and method of cover
cropping, they consistently found soil carbon gains with the addition of
cover cropping. Abe et al. (2020) studied the effect of the cover crop
Calliandra calothyrsus, a small leguminous tree, on Indonesian vegetable
fields. The cover crop increased soil carbon content by approximately
70 g-C kg soil-1 relative to fields that sat fallow for a full growing season.
Two other studies looked at the effects of a cover crop when planted
before and with the main crops (Lienhard et al., 2013; Pheap et al.,
2019). Pheap et al. (2019) found labile carbon stocks increased by 2.6
times in Cambodian soybean croplands that planted stylo (Stylosanthes
guianensis) and great millet (Sorghum bicolor) as cover crops compared to
soybean plots with no cover crops. Lienhard et al. (2013) found in
diverse Laotian croplands growing rice, maize, and soybeans, total soil
carbon increased by 16% with a variety of cover crops (rice: stylo;
maize: finger millet [Eleusine coracana], pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan], and
ruzi grass [Brachiaria ruziziensis]; soybean: oat [Avena sativa] and
buckwheat [Fagopyrum esculentum]).
These studies used different control (or reference) and cover crop­
ping treatments. While Abe et al. (2020) compared the effect of cover
crops on fallow croplands the other three studies tested the effect of
cover crops in croplands that were currently cultivated (Lienhard et al.,
2013; Pheap et al., 2019; Shrestha et al., 2002a). The seasonal timing of
cover crop application also varied across studies. Shrestha et al.
(2002b)) cultivated cover crops during the transition from dry to wet
season while Lienhard et al. (2013) and Pheap et al. (2019) cultivated
cover crops prior to and with the main cash crops. Despite these dif­
ferences all four studies reported gains in soil carbon. Pheap et al. (2019)
found labile carbon stocks increased by 2.6 times compared to the
absence of cover crops and Lienhard et al. (2013) found an increase of
16% in total soil carbon. In Abe et al. (2020), the fallow plot with cover
crops had a higher soil carbon content of approximately 70 g-C kg soil-1
relative to fallow plots without cover crops.
While adding cover crops is generally thought to improve soil carbon
stocks (Jian et al., 2020; Kaye and Quemada, 2017; Lal, 2015), some
studies suggest that the increase in soil carbon might not be as pro­
nounced or may even be reversed at deeper soil depths. For example, a
study in maize, tomato [Solanum lycopersicum], and wheat [Triticum]
croplands in California, USA found that cover cropping led to a net
decrease in soil carbon stocks when soil samples were taken to 200 cm
depth. Although soil carbon stocks increased in the top 0–30 cm soils,
soil carbon decreased at deeper soil depths of 30–200 cm, which resul­
ted in overall soil carbon losses of 13.4 Mg C ha-1 (Tautges et al., 2019).
This finding is similar to Shrestha et al. (2002b), which we reviewed in
this synthesis. Shrestha et al. (2002b) measured soil labile carbon con­
tent in 25 cm increments from 0 to 100 cm depth in sweet pepper and
rice fields with and without cover crops. At deeper soil depths, they
found that fields with catch crops such as indigo had equal or lower
labile carbon content compared with sites with indigo. Shrestha et al.
(2002b) hypothesized they found these mixed results because their soils
contained varying proportions of clay at different depths, which causes
variations in the effects of cover cropping on SOC sequestration
(Shrestha et al. (2002b). It is thus critical to consider how the effect of
cover cropping on SOC might also depend on the depth of soil samples.
Overall, biogeochemical modeling and mapping exercises and liter­
ature reviews have identified tropical Southeast Asian croplands as a
region of high potential for increasing SOC sequestration rates through
cover cropping (Porwollik et al., 2022; West and Six, 2007). Yet, limited
empirical research in the region and concern about how SOC stocks may
11
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
change deeper in the soil profile may dampen the interest of govern­
ments or investors to fund the implementation of these practices.
3.1.5. Crop rotations
Crop rotation refers to planting a planned sequence of crops over
time in the same field. Crop rotation is an ancient practice that has been
incorporated into modern farming because of its many benefits, which
include reductions in crop disease, weeds, and pests and increased crop
yields (Bullock, 1992; Shah et al., 2021). More recently, researchers
suggest that crop rotation may increase SOC sequestration rates by
increasing soil aggregation and plant carbon inputs (King and Blesh,
2018; Shah et al., 2021) and increase agricultural climate resilience by
diversifying agricultural systems (Yu et al., 2022).
Studies on crop rotation were based in Cambodia (n = 3), the
Philippines (n = 3), Vietnam (n = 1), and Indonesia (n = 1; SI Table 1).
The majority focused on rice, maize, soybean, cowpea, or mungbean
[Vigna radiata] (SI Table 3). Other crops studied include pineapple and
cassava (SI Table 3). Crop rotations were similar depending on the pri­
mary crop plant. Studies in rice paddies often rotated rice with mung
bean or maize (He et al., 2015; Janz et al., 2019; Tran Ba et al., 2016)
while soybean was rotated with sesame (Sesamum indicum) or maize
(Pheap et al., 2019). The study that examined pineapple croplands
rotated plantings with cassava and King Grass (Blepharidachne kingii)
(Dewi et al., 2018). Another study focused on maize and legumes rotated
with peanuts and pole sitao (Ocampo and Zamora, 2016).
Five of the seven studies reported positive results for soil carbon
sequestration with crop rotation (Fig. 6). Generally, studies compared
crop rotations to a monoculture cropping system that cultivated the
same main crop each year or growing season. However, the frequency of
rotations and choice of cropping system differed among studies and
were determined by specific local practices. The majority of studies
explored double cropping, or rotating two crops within a year (He et al.,
2015; Hok et al., 2021; Janz et al., 2019), and triple cropping, rotating
among three crops within a year (Ocampo and Zamora, 2016; Tran Ba
et al., 2016). Dewi et al. (2018) studied rotations determined by the
growing season lengths of cassava (ten months), pineapple (18 months),
and King Grass (24 months) crops. Pheap et al. (2019) included biannual
rotations of soybean and maize. For instance, triple cropping (corn-le­
gume-legume) observed in Ocampo and Zamora (2016) is a local prac­
tice used by farmers in Isabela, Philippines, called palusot. The increased
frequency of crop rotation could affect soil carbon sequestration espe­
cially if farmers till soil between each rotation. This could lead to the
release of soil carbon into the atmosphere during each tillage event and a
net loss of carbon from the soil, as observed in Ocampo and Zamora
(2016) where triple cropping led to a decline of SOC content by 0.3%.
Overall, we found support from empirical studies in Southeast Asia
that crop rotation is likely to deliver gains in soil carbon despite dif­
ferences in the crops and rotation lengths across studies, which align
with studies from other regions. One study in Brazil reported that
planting sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea) or forage sorghum (Sorghum
bicolor) before planting soybeans increased soil carbon stocks (6.25 and
2.5 ton ha-1 respectively; Rigon and Calonego, 2020). A study in Spain
found that the rotation between wheat, vetch, and pea had equal effects
as reducing tillage regimes on increasing soil carbon stocks (Hernanz
et al., 2009). However, to quantify the specific effects of crop rotation on
SOC, it is necessary to build more empirical data that captures compa­
rable variations in experimental designs (such as frequency of rotations)
and units of measurement for SOC.
3.1.6. Improved seed variety
Agronomists are developing new seed varieties with higher grain
yields to meet the growing demand for food as the human population
increases. Some of these newer crop varieties may emit less CH4 than
other varieties, which may be driven by variations in plant traits like
smaller gas transport capacity within plant tissue (Wassmann et al.,
2002), locking more plant-derived carbon in larger fruits that limits root
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
exudates (Sass and Cicerone, 2002), and being more efficient in water
use in the drought-resistant varieties (Zhang et al., 2021). We found four
studies from Myanmar (n = 1) and the Philippines (n = 3) that
compared CH4 emissions between rice varieties (SI Table 1).
Three of the four studies reported a reduction in CH4 emissions, one
study was inconclusive on CH4 (Wassmann et al., 2002), and one study
found that nitrous oxide emissions increased (Win et al., 2021; Fig. 7).
Two of the three studies classified as positive used IR72 as their refer­
ence variety (one of the main rice varieties used around the world and in
Southeast Asia) in comparison with the IR64 variety (Wassmann et al.,
2000b) or a group of varieties including IR65597, Dular, Magat, and
PSBRC14 (Wassmann et al., 2000a). The third study found lower CH4
emissions of the IR50 variety (0.683 g kg-1) that is widely grown in
Myanmar relative toa newer variety Manawthukha (1.084 g kg -1; Win
et al., 2021) However, a larger inconclusive study by Wassmann et al.
(2002) also compared the IR72 variety to other varieties (Dular,
IR65597, Magat, IR52, PSBRC20, PSBRC14, and IR6500) had varying
CH4 emissions relative to IR72 on different years, suggesting that there is
no consistent ranking for rice varieties in terms of CH4 emissions.
Wassmann et al. (2002) also noted that variations in abiotic envi­
ronments and changing interactions between the rice seed varieties and
the biophysical environment introduced complexities to the CH4 emis­
sion reduction effect. These variations undermine our ability to deduce
the relative CH4-abating potential of different rice varieties. One
example is how Wassmann et al. (2000b) found that IR72 (8 kg CH4
hg-1) had greater CH4 emissions than Dular (5 kg CH4 ha-1) while Wang
et al. (1997) found that IR72 had lower CH4 emission rates compared to
Dular. These contrasting findings underline the need to have more
empirical studies and data which will enable a comparison of the effects
of selection of seed varieties on greenhouse gas emissions across dif­
ferences in experimental designs and abiotic conditions.
While we found no studies that measured changes in SOC, it will be
meaningful to investigate the effects of improved seed varieties on SOC
for rice and explore how the selection of varieties interacts with abiotic
conditions and agronomic practices (like the addition of rice straw,
changes to irrigation regime) to affect SOC and CH4 emissions.
3.1.7. Manure
Manure, which refers to fresh or composted animal dung or green
plant material (also known as green manure) is added to soils to restore
soil fertility. Manure is thought to increase soil carbon by serving as a
catalyst for microbial activity that promotes the formation and stabili­
zation of soil macroaggregates (Aoyama et al., 1999; Puget et al., 1995;
Six et al., 1999). We found a total of nineteen studies on manure
application with the majority found in Thailand (n = 8). Other countries
include Indonesia (n = 4), the Philippines (n = 3), Myanmar (n = 2),
Vietnam (n = 2), and Cambodia (n = 1; SI Table 1). Studies were on rice
(n = 18) and maize (n = 2; SI Table 3). Most studies applied animal or
farmyard manure from cows and buffalos, while a few studies applied
green manure (n = 5) from plants, typically nitrogen-fixers like mimosa
(Mimosa pudica) and Sebsania rostrata.
Our synthesis suggests that adding manure to croplands can increase
SOC. Six out of seven studies that measured soil carbon found an in­
crease in SOC (Fig. 6). However, the single study in the rice paddies of
Thailand that reported increase SOC found opposing results on the
impact of green manure application. In the Thai study, the plot that
received green manure had a lower soil carbon content (7.5 ± 1.5 g kg-
1
) than the plot with conventional synthetic fertilizer(9.4 ± 1.0 g kg-1;
Thuithaisong et al., 2011). Another study, Oechaiyaphum et al. (2020),
found that green manure raised soil carbon content from 3.43
± 2.04 g kg-1 in 2007–4.26 ± 1.96 g kg-1.
These studies on manure varied in their control or reference treat­
ments. Wassmann et al. (2000b) compared the application of green
manure and urea to the application of urea, urea with ammonium sul­
fate, or urea with rice straw. Supparattanapan et al. (2009) compared
the application of cow manure to the absence of any organic
12
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
amendments. Despite these differences, the majority of the studies on
SOC reported gains and this suggests that manure application is bene­
ficial for SOC. However, to quantify the effects of manure application on
SOC, there need to be more studies for each version of control or
reference treatments and other aspects of the experimental designs (such
as the cropping seasons).
Increased greenhouse gas emissions might be a concern for manure
application. We found 13 studies that measured CH4 emissions and five
that measured nitrous oxide emissions after manure application (Fig. 7).
For CH4, five studies reported increased emissions, two reported
decreased emissions, and six were inconclusive (Fig. 7). For nitrous
oxide, two studies reported increased emissions, one reported decreased
emissions, and two were inconclusive (Fig. 7). Studies that reported a
decrease in CH4 emissions compared manure application against urea
only (Corton et al., 2000) and against synthetic fertilizers or rice straw
compost only (Win et al., 2021). This suggests that the choice of treat­
ments (including control treatment) and cropping season could be
leading factors that influence the direction of change in emissions.
For greenhouse gases, the inconclusive studies found mixed results as
they took measurements across different cropping seasons and/or with
different control (or reference) treatments. For example, Bronson et al.
(1997) found that the use of urea or rice straw with synthetic fertilizers
generated relatively more nitrous oxide emissions (5.9–13.1 mg N m-2)
during the wet season and fewer nitrous oxide emissions
(5.7–8.9 mg N m-2) during the dry season compared to the combination
of synthetic fertilizers and manure (wet: 5.5 mg N m-2, dry:
12.1 mg N m-2; SI Table 5). Wassmann et al. (2000b) was also incon­
clusive, in part because it employed multiple control treatments, found
that the combination of urea and green manure (Sesbania rostrata)
resulted in more CH4 (dry: 119 mg CH4 m-2 d-1, wet: 42 mg CH4 m-2 d-1)
than using urea alone (dry: 14 mg CH4 m-2 d-1, wet: 27 mg CH4 m-2 d-1)
or urea with ammonium sulfate (dry: 9 mg CH4 m-2 d-1, wet: 7 mg CH4
m-2 d-1), but fewer CH4 emissions than combining urea with fresh rice
straw (dry: 634 mg CH4 m-2 d-1, wet: 621 mg CH4 m-2 d-1) (SI Table 5). It
is encouraged that future studies consider the effects of manure and
other organic amendments on greenhouse gas emissions across time
(through different cropping seasons) and also compare the changes to
other multiple forms of organic amendments to evaluate the relative
global warming potential of organic amendments.
Our synthesis on the effects of manure application on greenhouse gas
emissions aligns with prior studies from croplands outside of Southeast
Asia. The relative increase of emissions from manure application varies
depending on the type of organic manure, the physicochemical prop­
erties of the soil, and the relative ratio of manure to total N inputs (Ren
et al., 2017; Shakoor et al., 2021). For example, manure application to
flooded croplands like rice paddies can increase CH4 gas emissions
relative to upland cropland systems (Cai et al., 2007; Linquist et al.,
2012). For these reasons, manure application management should be
tailored to the specific site condition, which requires more empirical
research to understand the interactive effects of manure type, soil
physico-chemical properties, and crop type on soil carbon stock gains
and greenhouse gas emissions within Southeast Asian cropland systems.
More importantly, the use of manure to build SOC requires monitoring
of possible increases in CH4 and nitrous oxide to understand the net
impact of the practice on climate change.
3.1.8. Organic farming
Organic farming is a farming approach that comprises multiple in­
terventions with a focus on using organic matter like compost and
manure as soil amendment instead of synthetic or chemical fertilizers.
We encountered 4 studies that measured the effects of organic farming
on soil carbon sequestration and/or greenhouse gas emissions. The
studies were based in Thailand (n = 2), Indonesia (n = 1), and Malaysia
(n = 1; SI Table 1). Three studies were based in rice paddies and one
used volcanic soils from croplands that were cultivating vegetables (Abe
et al., 2020).
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
Across the 4 studies, three measured changes in soil carbon and two
found increases in soil carbon with implementation of organic farming
practices relative to conventional farming (Fig. 6). Arunrat et al. (2022)
found that across a 3-year experiment from the organic farming plot
recorded larger soil carbon stocks (75,226 kg C ha-1) relative to stocks in
the conventional farming plot (67,254 kg C ha-1). Conversely, another
study found that conventional farming soils had greater soil carbon
stock than the organic farming soils at both 0–5 cm (424 vs 370 mg C kg
soil-1) and 5–20 cm soil depths (1223 vs 1039 mg C kg soil-1;Kroeksakul
et al., 2022).
Two studies measured greenhouse gas emissions and both studies
showed that organic farming results in greater CH4 emissions. Arunrat
et al. (2022) found that its organic farming plot emitted 2932.2 kg
CO2eq ha-1 year-1 of CH4 compared to the conventional farming plot’s
2876.8 kg CO2eq ha-1 year-1 of CH4. Harun et al. (2020) found that
organic farming produced 0.76 kg of CH4 per ton of rice whereas con­
ventional plots produced 0.71 kg of CH4 per ton of rice. The higher CH4
emissions in organic farming plots are expected because the organic
amendments used in organic farming may provide readily mineralizable
organic matter for soil bacterial methanogens (Neue, 1997, p. 19; Yan
et al., 2005). It is a concern if organic farming is to be used as a method
to achieve an increase in soil carbon stocks because the greater CH4
emissions might counter any climate change mitigation achieved
through soil carbon sequestration. Studies that aim to take stock of the
net impact of the change in agriculture practice(s) such as imple­
mentation of organic farming should measure both changes in SOC and
greenhouse gas emissions to quantify the net impact of the change.
Other literature on the effects of organic farming contrasts our
findings for greenhouse gases and suggests that organic farming will be
useful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, most of this
literature often draws upon empirical studies based in temperate
countries. For instance, Goh (2011) cited studies conducted in
Switzerland and the Netherlands that found a reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions by 18% and enhanced soil carbon sequestration through
organic farming practices like avoiding the use of synthetic fertilizers,
crop rotation with leguminous crops, conservation tillage, and return of
crop residues. Another meta-analysis of 107 studies found that organic
farming had lower greenhouse gas emissions but none of the studies
used were based in Southeast Asia (Lee et al., 2015). Other studies that
directly compare organic and conventional farming are often based
outside Southeast Asia. For example, (Squalli and Adamkiewicz, 2018)
found that every increase in 1% of organic farming acreage could reduce
0.049% emissions using studies in the US. These studies and analyses are
of limited applicability to Southeast Asia given the differences in climate
and soils between temperate and tropical croplands and the limited
empirical evidence that we found. Hence, it is important to have
empirical data on a local to regional scale to better assess the potential of
organic farming to improve soil carbon and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
3.1.9. Residue management
Croplands typically produce crop residues that are of low economic
value to farmers and require removal after harvest. In Southeast Asia, a
common crop residue is rice husks that is frequently burned and release
carbon dioxide immediately into the atmosphere. Research suggests that
if farmers incorporate crop residues into field soils as compost or biochar
instead of removing crop residues, they can replenish soil organic mat­
ter, increase soil carbon sequestration, and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions (Drever et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2020; Smith and Olesen,
2010). We found twelve studies of how changes in crop residue man­
agement impacted SOC (n = 3) and greenhouse gas emissions (n = 9).
These studies were based in the Philippines (n = 5), Thailand (n = 4),
Indonesia (n = 3), Cambodia (n = 1), and Vietnam (n = 1; SI Table 1).
Out of the twelve studies, ten were on rice, one was on maize, and one
was on cassava (SI Table 4). All of these studies documented an existing
way of managing crop residues and an intervention tested through an
13
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
experiment.
The evidence for residue management increasing soil carbon stocks
is encouraging but limited. Two studies reported that soil carbon stocks
increased over time with crop residues application versus removal
(Minasny et al., 2011; Naklang et al., 1999). Minasny et al. (2011) traced
the effects of returning rice crop residues and recorded an increase in
SOC content from 0.80 in the years 1980–1990–1.21 kg m-2 in the years
2000–2010. Naklang et al. (1999) found that the plots that retained rice
stubble had greater total SOC (4.44 mg C g soil-1) than plots that did not
(4.11 mg C g soil-1; SI Table 5).
However, the effects of changes in crop residue management prac­
tices on greenhouse gas emissions from croplands are concerning. Four
out of eight studies on CH4 reported an increase in emissions and two out
of four studies on nitrous oxide reported an increase in emissions from
the incorporation of crop residues back into soils (Fig. 7). For example,
Janz et al. (2019) found that the plot with fresh rice straw incorporated
had a 49% increase in CH4 from 179.34 ± 37.4 kg CH4-C ha-1 (residues
removed) to 268.47 ± 36.6 kg CH4-C ha-1 (rice straw incorporated).
Kraus et al. (2022) found that incorporated rice straw residues led to a
109% increase in nitrous oxide emissions from 2.1 ± 0.6 kg N2O-N ha-1
(residues removed) to 4.4 ± 1.4 kg N2O-N ha-1 (SI Table 5).
Overall, the limited number of empirical studies on SOC suggest that
incorporating crop residues could enhance soil carbon stocks, similar to
literature from other regions. A simulation study of China’s rice fields
showed that incorporating rice straws into soils could increase soil
carbon stocks from 21.8 to 23.9 ton ha-1 and soil sequestration rates
could rise to 24.4 Tg C yr-1 (Chen et al., 2019). Yet, the elevation of
greenhouse gas emissions from the decomposition of the organic crop
residues, due to the availability of additional organic substrates for
methanogens, might counteract the gains in soil carbon sequestration. A
review of the effects of crop residue incorporation on SOC stocks and
greenhouse gas emissions in European agricultural soils found the same
outcomes: soil carbon stocks increased but so did greenhouse gas
emissions (Lehtinen et al., 2014). Similar to practices like compost and
organic farming, studies need to consider both increases in greenhouse
gas emissions and SOC to derive the net effect of changing crop residue
management practices on the climate. It is critical to explore methods to
avert the observed increase in greenhouse gas emissions from crop
residue management practices like rice straw incorporation, in order to
fully leverage the climate mitigation potential of this practice. Our
synthesis found that an alternative residue management method,
amending crop residues by composting or burning to ash before applica­
tion to the soil generally reduced CH4 emissions compared to incorpo­
rating fresh crop residues (Chareonsilp et al., 2000; Vibol and
Towprayoon, 2010; Wassmann et al., 2000b). Moreover, when crop
residues are removed from croplands and used to prepare soil amend­
ments such as ash or compost, tracking on- and off-field greenhouse gas
emissions will be helpful to evaluate the overall impact of residue
management methods on greenhouse gas emissions.
3.1.10. Shifting cultivation and fallow
Shifting cultivation, or allowing croplands to ‘rest’ or lie fallow in
some years, is a practice that has been historically used by farmers in
Southeast Asia (Cairns and Garrity, 1999). However, in recent decades,
it has been replaced by intensive farming which depletes SOC stocks and
disrupts many other ecosystem services of the croplands in Southeast
Asia (Bruun et al., 2009; Dressler et al., 2017; Ziegler et al., 2009).
Switching away from continuous cropping and back to shifting culti­
vation (also known as swidden cultivation) might replenish soil fertility
and soil carbon stocks. We found 5 studies that measured changes in soil
carbon in croplands that were left to lie fallow. These studies were based
in Indonesia (n = 2), Thailand (n = 2), and Laos (n = 1; SI Table 1). The
crops in these studies are rice (n = 3), vegetables (n = 1), and palm oil
(n = 1; SI Table 4).
Out of the five studies, three of them (Abe et al., 2020; Fujii et al.,
2020; Yimyam et al., 2016) found gains in soil carbon while the
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
remaining two studies (Funakawa et al., 1997; Hepp et al., 2018) were
classified as inconclusive (Fig. 6, SI Table 5). From the three studies that
were classified positive, longer durations of fallow might translate to
higher chances of an increase in SOC. First, Abe et al. (2020) had three
conventional farming plots compared against three natural fallow plots.
The natural fallow plots with the shortest fallow period (less than three
years) recorded slightly lower SOC than the two conventional farming
plots. However, the other 3 fallow plots (natural fallow for 10 years, 25
years, and Caliandra fallow for 20 years) recorded significantly higher
soil carbon content than all conventional farming plots. In the second
study, Yimyam et al. (2016) compared permanently cultivated rice
paddies against plots that were under shifting cultivation for six years. It
found that plots that were under shifting cultivation had a higher soil
carbon density than the permanently cultivated plots (Yimyam et al.,
2016). Lastly, Fujii et al. (2020) monitored soil carbon stock in plots that
were continuously covered by Imperata during fallow against plots that
cultivated oil palm and Acacia from 1986 to 2015 (29 years). The study
found that the plot under continuous fallow and the plot that cultivated
Acacia after fallow had an increase in SOC stock while the plot that
cultivated oil palm (no fallow) had no increase over time in SOC (Fujii
et al., 2020).
The two inconclusive studies (Funakawa et al., 1997; Hepp et al.,
2018) used a much shorter duration for fallow and the shorter fallow
periods could explain why the results were inconclusive (Fig. 6). Both
studies found mixed results when comparing soil carbon stocks between
plots undergoing fallow and plots that were not. In Funakawa et al.
(1997), a plot that was in its first year of fallow after five years of
cultivation had a much lower soil carbon stock (54.0 ton C ha-1) than the
other plots that were still being used for rice cultivation (81.9–95.1 ton C
ha-1). Likewise, Hepp et al. (2018) found that as its plots underwent
fallow for only 3 years, soil carbon and permanganate-oxidizable carbon
(POXC, a measure of active carbon) increased by an average of 1.06%
and 169 mg kg-1 respectively, only to decrease afterward. This is sup­
ported by Aguilera et al. (2013), which showed that longer fallow pe­
riods are better able to restore soil properties like SOC. This is because
previous cropland management practices that degraded soils, such as
shortening fallow and mechanized tillage, are ceased for a longer time
and soil organic matter can regenerate longer. Hence, more empirical
studies can help better understand the effect of the duration of fallow
across different soil properties and study crops on SOC.
Finally, other literature on the effects of shifting cultivation and
fallow on soil carbon suggests that the practice might also restore soil
carbon stock. A meta-analysis found that allowing croplands to convert
from primary forests to lay fallow can increase soil carbon levels by 32%
from pre-conversion levels (Don et al., 2011). Bruun et al. (2021)
compared SOC stocks of fallow land against old-growth forests (refer­
ence plots) in Laos and found that shifting cultivation did not lead to a
loss in soil carbon. de Neergaard et al. (2008) found that shifting culti­
vation systems of upland rice did not deplete soil carbon when compared
to soil samples from the neighboring native forest in Sarawak, Malaysia.
These studies also call for future research to consider the contribution of
deeper soil layers to changes in soil carbon stocks from shifting culti­
vation and fallow (Bruun et al., 2021; de Neergaard et al., 2008; Don
et al., 2011).
3.1.11. Tillage reduction
Farmers typically till cropland soils to break up soil aggregates,
which allows organic amendments to filter deeper into the soil profile
and prepares the soil for seed planting. Changes in the tillage regime to
conservation tillage (reduced or no tillage) regime is one possible way to
enhance soil carbon stocks. The change in till regime generally helps
reduce soil erosion, slow down decomposition of organic matter
decomposition, stabilize and increase large soil macroaggregates (Song
et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2020). However, reduced till practices can also
lead to reductions in crop-yields and lower plant carbon inputs from root
and shoot residues (Ogle et al., 2012, 2005). Thus, the impact of tillage
14
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
regime changes may be determined by the balance between carbon
losses from reduced crop yields and residues and carbon gains from
reduced decomposition and soil erosion (Ogle et al., 2012). We found
studies on this practice based in Thailand (n = 3), Cambodia (n = 3),
Laos (n = 1), Malaysia (n = 1), and Indonesia (n = 5; SI Table 1). The
majority of these studies focused on rice production (5 out of 13) with
the remaining studies on legumes (n = 5), cassava (n = 4), maize
(n = 4), palm oil (n = 1), vegetables (n = 1), fruits (n = 1), and sugar­
cane (n = 1; SI Table 4).
We found mixed impacts of changes in tillage regime on SOC. Out of
the 11 studies that measured changes to soil carbon stocks, six reported
gains, three were inconclusive and one study was negative (Fig. 6). The
one negative study was based in Thailand’s maize-mungbean fields and
found that the no-till plots had lower soil carbon stocks than conven­
tional till plots at a soil sampling depth of 0–15 cm (Matsumoto et al.,
2021). The authors hypothesized that poor soil aggregation formation in
the no-tillage regime prevented conversion of higher plant carbon inputs
to SOC above the reference plot (Matsumoto et al., 2020). Two of the
inconclusive studies found that the impact of reduced tillage on soil
carbon stocks was contingent upon the application of organic amend­
ments on the plots with reduced tillage (Miura et al., 2013; Sarno et al.,
2004). In Sarno et al. (2004), conventional tillage with mulch applica­
tion had 0.1 g kg soil-1 more soil carbon than no-tillage with mulch. In
the absence of mulch application, no-tillage had a higher soil carbon
content than the conventional tillage plot. Likewise, Miura et al. (2013)
found that conventional tillage with manure addition had higher total
soil carbon (1.31 ± 0.09%) than no-till with manure addition (1.28
± 0.2%). Yet, for plots without manure, the no-tillage plot had higher
total soil carbon (1.18 ± 0.13%) than the conventional tillage plot
(1.08 ± 0.24%). This suggests that when evaluating the effects of
changes in tillage regime on soil carbon, the use of organic amendments
such as mulch and manure can confound the effects of changes to the
tillage regime of croplands.
Prior analyses on effects of tillage regime on soil carbon suggest that
the role of carbon inputs (as organic amendments) and duration of
implementation of regime matter. (Alvarez, 2006; Six et al., 2002)
showed that effects of conservation tillage (reduced or no tillage) can
have varying effects on SOC stocks, and even lead to decrease in SOC
during the early periods. However, a steady increase in SOC is observed
typically after 15 years (Alvarez, 2006). This finding aligns with the
results of the studies in our synthesis. Most of our studies on tillage were
under 5 years long and these studies comprise mostly positive but also
negative and inconclusive studies (Fig. 5, SI Table 1). One study lasting 7
years was inconclusive as it found a decline in SOC in the sixth and
seventh years (Anda and Kurnia, 2010). The only study that lasted
longer than 15 years was (Wiharso, 2021) which tracked SOC for 20
years and found an increase over time (SI Table 1). For carbon inputs, a
study in Brazil showed that for no-tillage to increase soil carbon, it is
essential to also incorporate legume cover crops (Conceição et al.,
2013). From our synthesis, we find that while experimental treatments
are often similar (no or reduced tillage against conventional tillage), the
use of organic amendments like mulch and manure and differences in
duration of changes to till regime can affect the response of SOC stock to
the till practice change (Baker et al., 2007).
3.2. Other practices
Here, we describe a list of 6 practices that were not suitable for a
coherent synthesis, mostly due to having relatively fewer studies or
vastly different interventions despite being in the same category. We
briefly outline the reported outcomes for these practices. All studies for
all practices in this article can be found in the Supplementary
Information.
3.2.1. Conservation agriculture
Conservation agriculture is broadly defined as the implementation of
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
three interlinked practices: crop diversification (through rotation and/
or intercropping), crop cover, and reduced or no-till (FAO, n.d.). There
was one empirical study in Cambodia that implemented all three prac­
tices and found higher soil carbon stocks in the conservation agriculture
plots (23.7 and 23.6 g kg-1) relative to a control plot with conventional
tillage, no cover crops, nor crop diversification (21.3 g kg-1; Pheap et al.,
2019).
3.2.2. Intercropping
Intercropping is the practice of cultivating multiple crops within a
field. We found a single study from the Philippines that compared a
corn-legume cropland intercropped with peanuts and vegetables against
corn monoculture (Ocampo and Zamora, 2016). The monocrop corn plot
had higher SOC in shallow soil depths (up to 20 cm). However, at
20–30 cm depth, the monocrop plots had lower SOC stock (6.61 Mg C
ha-1) at crop maturity than the intercropped plots (7.76 Mg C ha-1;
Ocampo and Zamora, 2016).
3.2.3. System of rice intensification (SRI)
SRI was developed to increase productivity of rice paddies by
altering the management of plants, soils, water, and nutrients through
early plant establishment, reduced plant density, improved soil condi­
tions through enrichment with organic matter, and reduced and
controlled water application (Cornell University, n.d.). We found two
studies that compared the impact of SRI and conventional rice farming
techniques on greenhouse gas emissions. Both studies supported the
hypothesis that SRI techniques lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions
than conventional rice farming techniques (Htwe et al., 2021; Mishra
et al., 2021). One study of sites in Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and Viet
Nam, found that greenhouse gas emission reduction was greater when
SRI was applied to rainfed paddies compared to irrigated paddies, owing
to the lower plant density and decreased fertilizer in rainfed paddies
(Mishra et al., 2021).
3.2.4. Transplanting to direct seeding
Conventional rice farming typically transplants rice seedlings into
rice paddies. Direct seeding of rice seeds to fields is thought to reduce
water use, labor use, and CH4 gas emissions compared to conventionally
tilled transplanting of rice (Marasini et al., 2016; Pathak et al., 2013).
Three studies considered direct seeding in rice paddies of the Philippines
(n = 2) and Thailand (n = 1), finding mixed results of the practice. One
found that transplanting rice seedlings had lower mean CH4 emissions at
17 mg m-2 d-1 relative to direct seeding (26 mg m-2 d-1; Chareonsilp
et al., 2000). In contrast, another study found that direct wet seeding
reduced seasonal CH4 emissions by 67 and 14 kg ha-1, for wet and dry
seasons respectively relative to transplanting (Wassmann et al., 2000b).
3.2.5. Irrigation regime management
Changes to the irrigation regime is another method suggested to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from croplands. We found 25 studies
that measured cropland response to change in irrigation regime but only
one study focusing on a change in SOC. A meta-analysis on irrigation
regime effects on greenhouse gas emissions in Southeast Asian rice
paddies found mixed results on the effect of the practice (Yagi et al.,
2020). While the majority of studies that measured CH4 (20 out of 24)
reported a decrease in CH4 emissions, 9 out of 17 studies that measured
nitrous oxide found an increase in emissions (Fig. 6). Only one study in
the meta-analysis examined soil carbon (Sriphirom et al., 2020) and
found that the effect varied depending on the biochar and reference
treatments. More studies could be done to examine the effects of an
alteration of the irrigation regime on soil carbon stocks.
3.2.6. Integrated nutrient management systems
Integrated nutrient management (INM) broadly refers to alterations
to the source, timing, rate, and placement of nutrient amendments to
improve crop productivity. The treatments in the studies on INM varied
15
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
greatly. Some treatments include adding or substituting different
amendments such as rice straw, humic acid, acetate, root exudates, and
empty fruit branches (Hanafi and Salwa, 1998; Lu et al., 2000; Tao et al.,
2017). Other approaches include alterations to the timing and place­
ment of nutrients (Pauli et al., 2014; Weller et al., 2015). Overall,
improving nutrient management systems has been regarded as one
approach to using croplands as a natural climate solution (Griscom et al.,
2017). However, the huge range of approaches to improved nutrient
management restricts the option of a coherent synthesis and we
recommend a future review to stratify the various approaches and
evaluate the impacts of the different approaches to integrated nutrient
management on SOC and greenhouse gas emissions.
4. Limitations and future research
4.1. Soil carbon measurement methodology
Our synthesis surfaced the following three considerations when
measuring SOC: measurement technique, bulk density correction, and
depth of soil samples. There are multiple lab techniques for measuring
SOC, and the broad categories of calculation methods are the following:
(i) the Walkley-Black method which measures recalcitrant SOC using a
chemical oxidant, (ii) (automated) dry combustion and loss-on-ignition
which measure SOC based on carbon dioxide released from thermally
oxidized soil, (iii) humic matter method which measures mostly recal­
citrant soil organic matter using special chemical procedures to extract
humic acids (Roper et al., 2019). The studies in our synthesis used
different methods to derive SOC stocks, including the Walkley-Black
method (Dewi et al., 2018; Trinh et al., 2017) and another approach:
the Tyurin method (Win et al., 2021).
These measurement techniques vary in the percentage recovery of
organic carbon from soil samples, reducing precision in estimates of
total SOC stocks across techniques (Kalembasa and Jenkinson, 1973).
The Walkley-Black method may precisely measure SOC stocks in arid
and temperate soils (Soon and Abboud, 1991; Wang et al., 2012).
However, Roper et al. (2019) measured SOC in Tarboro loamy sand soil
in North Carolina, USA, and found that the Walkley-Black method
overestimated SOC stock (12.9 ± 2.1 g C kg-1) compared to the auto­
mated dry combustion method (7.7 ± 2.1 g C kg-1, Roper et al., 2019).
While these studies were not in Southeast Asia, they indicate how
measurement uncertainty arises in SOC estimates. The use of different
methods may introduce bias and as a result, the SOC values obtained
might require corresponding corrections when comparing across studies
on SOC.
A similar analysis of the relative accuracy of measurement methods
for tropical soils will be useful. One study on the efficacy of the Walkey-
Black method in Cameroon’s tropical tephra soils found the method to
greatly underestimate SOC content when compared to the dry com­
bustion method (Enang et al., 2018). Enang et al. (2018)’s findings in
tropical soils contrasts with that of Roper et al. (2019), suggesting that
the best methods in temperate and arid soils might not work as well in
the humid tropics. Most importantly, to consider the effects of agro­
nomic interventions (like regenerative agriculture practices) on SOC, it
will be ideal to use the same measurement method that is best able to
estimate SOC stock in tropical soils with as little bias as possible (Roper
et al., 2019).
4.2. Soil bulk density adjustments
Soil compaction is a critical factor that determines soil carbon stocks.
When there is a change in land use or agricultural practices, there will be
changes in bulk density from 5% to 20% due to compaction or expansion
of soil (Don et al., 2011). Examples of changes in agricultural practices
include changes in the tillage regime (Dam et al., 2005) and addition of
crop residues (Celik et al., 2010). Failure to account for changes in bulk
density can lead to inaccurate estimates of SOC. Hairiah et al. (2020)
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
found that soil carbon in a study site in Indonesia was underestimated
when changes in bulk density were not considered. Furthermore, a
meta-analysis on agricultural land use changes also found that changes
in SOC stocks could be underestimated by 28% after correcting for
changes in soil mass and bulk densities (Don et al., 2011). It is thus
imperative to account for the effects of soil compaction on soil carbon by
using the soil bulk density. We recommend future studies measure bulk
density changes (if soil management practices are involved) into their
measurements for SOC. This will allow soil samples to be taken and SOC
to be measured using equivalent soil mass (instead of fixed depth
method), ensuring that changes in soil bulk density do not affect the
accuracy of SOC measurements (Haden et al., 2020).
4.3. Depth of soil samples
Another difference in methodology is the depth of soil samples taken
for measurement. Changes in SOC in soil horizons are not linear because
SOC stocks differ within soil depths and treatments may impact soils to
different depths (Baker et al., 2007). A review found that most studies on
soil carbon stocks only measured to 30 cm depth. When studies
measured changes in SOC at deeper soil depths (> 40 cm), researchers
found no significant difference in SOC between reduced-tillage treat­
ment and conventional tillage treatment (Minasny et al., 2017). Most
studies in our synthesis only use samples collected from 0 to 30 cm soil
depth (Fig. 8). Studies that measured beyond 30 cm and segmented the
samples by depth intervals (e.g. 0–30 cm, 30–50 cm) were more likely to
report varying results between shallower soils and deeper soils. For
example, a study on the impact of three tillage regimes in a cereal
plantation in Indonesia found that conservation tillage (no-till and
minimal till) increased SOC relative to intensively tilled plots up to
120 cm depth (Wiharso et al., 2021). However, between 120 and
160 cm, the control plot with tillage had more soil carbon than the
no-tillage plot, likely because the effects of no-tillage were limited to
topsoil (Wiharso et al., 2021). Hence, given that most of our studies only
measure up to 30 cm, we recommend that future research on changes in
soil carbon attempt to measure changes to deeper layers if logistical
resources are not a constraint.
4.4. Hybrid interventions
Our analysis focused on synthesizing the impacts of single regener­
ative agriculture interventions. Some studies also considered hybrid
interventions, or the implementation of two or more regenerative agri­
culture practices in the same field. For example, we found studies that
combined cover cropping and no-tillage and no-tillage with application
of mulch (Miura et al., 2013; Hok et al., 2015). We focused on the im­
pacts of the single interventions in this review because there was
insufficient replication of hybrid combinations for meaningful synthesis.
Nevertheless, as more data becomes available, a review of the most
common hybrid interventions would be useful. For example, the addi­
tional use of biochar or alternate wetting and drying (an irrigation
technique) might help counteract the increases in CH4 emissions arising
from use of compost or manure (Sriphirom et al., 2020, 2021; Fig. 7).
Such a review could provide insight on whether the combination of
single practices can potentially yield positive interactions where the
overall effect is greater than the effect of any individual practice
(although rarely additive or greater than the sum of the individual
practices). It could also help identify circumstances where the combi­
nation of practices might be counterproductive, where the collective
impact of the practices is less than the effect of the individual practices.
4.5. Co-benefits of regenerative agriculture
Some studies in our review identified possible co-benefits of the
adoption of regenerative agriculture practices. Some of these benefits
include improved crop yield, greater effective cation exchange capacity,
16
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
and higher soil nitrogen content (Simarani et al., 2018; Sriphirom et al.,
2021; Wartenberg et al., 2020). The wide variation in the co-benefits
reported and measured across studies limited any review of differ­
ences in co-benefits among practices. However, it is critical to consider
the holistic suite of co-benefits from regenerative agriculture. Thus, a
review of co-benefits specific to each practice would facilitate a more
thorough cost-benefit analysis for each intervention.
5. Recommendations
5.1. Soil carbon sequestration for NDCs
Countries in Southeast Asia intend to improve agricultural land
management practices and consider soil carbon sequestration as part of
their climate change mitigation strategy and their nationally determined
contributions (NDCs). Some key policy commitments by these countries
focus on increasing support for better rice, nutrient, and crop residue
management practices, as well as changes to till regimes (Regional
analysis of the nationally determined contributions in Asia, 2020). Our
synthesis supports these commitments. We found that using organic
amendments like biochar, compost, and manure, as well as cover
cropping, crop rotation, and conservation tillage in croplands can
potentially increase soil carbon stocks in Southeast Asian croplands.
However, the use of organic amendments like compost and manure can
also lead to greater carbon dioxide, CH4, and nitrous oxide cumulative
emissions, which may reduce or reverse the benefits of these practices on
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Most studies measured
either SOC stocks or greenhouse gas emissions from regenerative agri­
cultural practices, which makes it challenging to calculate the relative
impacts of a single practice on total carbon cycles in these ecosystems.
Therefore, countries should encourage more researchers to measure
multiple carbon pools and fluxes within studies, which would allow for
calculations of CO2-equivalent emissions and better comparison of the
relative impact of practices on total cropland emissions.
There should be active policies and measures to anticipate and
mitigate any increase in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the
interventions. One such measure could be to switch the irrigation regime
for rice paddies from continuously flooded to alternate wetting and
drying (AWD). AWD drains croplands and introduces aerobic cycles that
stem CH4 production (Linquist et al., 2015). For this switch, policy­
makers and businesses should be prepared to provide resources to build
the necessary irrigation systems in rice paddies and financial incentives
to support and incentivize adoption by farmers (Asian Development
Bank, 2021).
Other practices, such as the use of crop rotation and the change in
irrigation regime, were not specifically mentioned by any Southeast
Asian country in their NDC measures (FAO, 2020). Our synthesis shows
that crop rotations might deliver gains in soil carbon, and a meta-
analysis also showed that changing irrigation regimes, amongst other
interventions like biochar application, can have strong greenhouse gas
emission reduction effects in Southeast Asian rice paddies (Yagi et al.,
2020).
From our synthesis, several practices in Section 3.2, such as the use of
intercropping and systems of rice intensification, are understudied
relative to other practices and thus have unknown potential to mitigate
climate change through cropland carbon sequestration. Fittingly, the
FAO has called for more research to specify and quantify improved
agricultural land management practices’ potential to mitigate climate
change and contributions to NDCs (Regional analysis of the nationally
determined contributions in Asia, 2020). A greater body of empirical
studies, especially for the aforementioned less well-studied practices in
Section 3.2, can bring clarity to the capacity of these practices to deliver
climate change mitigation benefits. Hence, policymakers can (1) desig­
nate more funding to studies on major crops that are relatively less
studied than rice (like palm oil and maize) and (2) less-studied practices
as well as practices that show mixed results. Such efforts will help
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
researchers address the paucity of empirical data and uncertainty in the
mitigation outcomes of these practices, such that policies for
agriculture-based climate change mitigation strategies become better
informed by scientific evidence.
5.2. Agriculture carbon credits
Adopting and scaling up regenerative agriculture practices across
Southeast Asian croplands will require financial capital. The change in
farming practices often requires new equipment and resources like
specialized equipment for seeding in no-till fields or applying biochar.
Moreover, a change in farming methods can introduce vagaries in
agricultural yields in the early years as farmers refine practices in their
fields. This will pose challenges to Southeast Asian farmers who gener­
ally do not have the capital to invest in big changes in farming methods
and endure the associated risks. A study in Queensland, Australia, found
that financial risk in changing farming systems was a key factor inhib­
iting adoption of regenerative agriculture (Dipu et al., 2022), especially
for small-scale farmers who face financial constraints. For farmers in
Southeast Asia, the financial risks of changing farming methods and the
farmers’ lack of financial capital necessitates public investments for
farmers to adopt innovations in agricultural practices that can enhance
the productivity and resilience of Southeast Asian croplands role (OECD
and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2017).
Thus, capital can help alleviate and buffer some of that financial risk to
support farmers adopting regenerative agriculture.
One promising capital source is emerging voluntary carbon markets
in Southeast Asian countries like Singapore (Taghizadeh-Hesary and
Hyun, 2022). Funding from corporations, investors, or philanthropic
foundations can support farmers adopting regenerative agriculture
through carbon credit projects. Project developers–which could be
farmers or third-party organizations that work with farmers–quantify
additional carbon sequestered (removal) or emissions avoided (avoid­
ance) when farmers implement a specific regenerative agricultural
practice to estimate ‘carbon credits’ from the project. An investor in a
given carbon project could use the carbon credits for philanthropic
reasons, as offsets to their own emissions, or as a commodity that could
be sold to another buyer. In theory, these markets could play a pivotal
role in funding Southeast Asian farmers’ transition from
market-oriented intensive farming methods to regenerative agriculture
practices (Burra et al., 2021; Lam et al., 2017).
However, for carbon markets to function effectively in mitigating
climate change, the agriculture carbon projects must involve regenera­
tive agriculture practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or in­
crease soil carbon stocks. The project must result in real (or quantifiable),
additional, and permanent gains in soil carbon or reductions in green­
house gas emissions (Murray et al., 2007; Thamo and Pannell, 2016).
While project monitoring, reporting, and verification is important, it is
equally crucial that there is strong empirical evidence on the ability of
regenerative agriculture practices to achieve positive climate change
mitigation outcomes. We advise that carbon project developers consider
implementing projects that encourage farmers to adopt practices with
stronger scientific evidence of climate change mitigation. Based on our
synthesis, regenerative agriculture practices that may be viable as
climate solutions include the use of organic amendments like biochar,
compost, and manure, as well as cover cropping, crop rotation, and
conservation tillage. However, there are still very few studies and
insufficient data to develop robust models to predict changes in SOC
stocks based on these interventions. Moreover, not all existing studies
implement steps to improve the accuracy of measurements of changes in
SOC by accounting for bulk density, equivalent soil mass accounting, or
by taking samples from deeper soils. These research gaps should be
addressed before issuing carbon credits.
Finally, project developers should monitor and mitigate increases in
greenhouse gas emissions when using organic amendments like biochar,
compost, and manure. Carbon credit registries need to work with project
17
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
developers and researchers to build and improve soil carbon prediction
models by collecting empirical data on baselines used (equivalent to
studies’ control or reference treatments), abiotic conditions (e.g. soil
properties, climate) of sites and plots, land use and soil management
history, and the effects of interventions on soil carbon or greenhouse gas
emissions. These data will be tremendously helpful in developing
practice-specific models that accurately quantify the effects of regener­
ative agriculture practices on soil carbon storage across different
experimental designs and abiotic conditions. These steps can help build
confidence in the efficacy of regenerative agriculture carbon projects to
mitigate climate change.
6. Conclusion
We found certain regenerative agriculture practices to be beneficial
for SOC. Despite the different experimental designs and treatments
implemented, the empirical evidence for those practices points to
similar outcomes: gains in SOC for Southeast Asian croplands. However,
for some practices, the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the
use of organic amendments like compost needs to be mitigated. To
reiterate, (I) policymakers and practitioners should anticipate and
address increases in greenhouse gas emissions while implementing
regenerative agriculture practices to increase soil carbon for climate
change mitigation. They can implement interventions that maximize the
climate change mitigation potential of regenerative agriculture and
support future research by collecting and sharing data. (II) Researchers
are encouraged to consider the effects of regenerative agriculture on
both SOC and greenhouse gases, and build more empirical data that can
be harmonized for practice-specific synthesis and quantification of the
effect size of interventions across different croplands and
agroecosystems.
Funding
A Yale-NUS College Summer Research Program Award supported ST
to complete this work in collaboration with the Yale Applied Science
Synthesis Program, which is supported through funding from the Yale
Center for Natural Carbon Capture (YCNCC).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
ST conceived the study. ST curated the data and conducted the
synthesis with inputs from SK. ST wrote the first draft of the manuscript
and both authors contributed to the final manuscript. SK supervised the
study.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data Availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Liu Weier, Dr. Cole Gross, and Dr. Mark
Bradford for the feedback on the manuscript. The authors are grateful to
Mdm Lalita Nair, Mr. Fabian Quan, and Ms. Evelyn Eng-Lim for sharing
their knowledge on regenerative agriculture in Southeast Asia. The au­
thors express their gratitude to Dr. Kelly Siman and Dr. David Kramar for
their insights.
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.agee.2023.108450.
References
Abbas, F., Hammad, H.M., Fahad, S., Cerdà, A., Rizwan, M., Farhad, W., Ehsan, S.,
Bakhat, H.F., 2017. Agroforestry: a sustainable environmental practice for carbon
sequestration under the climate change scenarios—a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 24, 11177–11191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8687-0.
Abe, S., Ashida, K., Kamil, M., Tobisaka, K., Kamarudin, K., Hermansah, Umami, I., 2020.
Land use and management effects on volcanic soils in West Sumatra, Indonesia.
Geoderma Reg. 22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2020.e00308.
Aguilera, J., Motavalli, P., Valdivia, C., Gonzales, M.A., 2013. Impacts of cultivation and
fallow length on soil carbon and nitrogen availability in the Bolivian Andean
Highland Region. Mt. Res. Dev. 33 (4), 391–403. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-
JOURNAL-D-12-00077.1.
Albrecht, A., Kandji, S.T., 2003. Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems.
Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 99, 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(03)
00138-5.
Alvarez, R., 2006. A review of nitrogen fertilizer and conservation tillage effects on soil
organic carbon storage. Soil Use Manag. 21, 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-
2743.2005.tb00105.x.
Anda, M., Kurnia, U., 2010. Restoring properties of artificially degraded ultisols and
oxisols and the effect on crop yields under tropical conditions. Commun. Soil Sci.
Plant Anal. 41, 553–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103620903531144.
Aoyama, M., Angers, D.A., N’Dayegamiye, A., 1999. Particulate and mineral-associated
organic matter in water-stable aggregates as affected by mineral fertilizer and
manure applications. Can. J. Soil Sci. 79, 295–302. https://doi.org/10.4141/S98-
049.
Arunrat, N., Sereenonchai, S., Chaowiwat, W., Wang, C., Hatano, R., 2022. Carbon,
nitrogen and water footprints of organic rice and conventional rice production over
4 years of cultivation: a case study in the lower north of Thailand. Agron. -Basel 12.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020380.
Asian Development Bank., 2021. Asian Development Outlook 2021 Update - Theme
Chapter: Transforming Agriculture in Asia, 2021.
Association of Southeast AsianNations (ASEAN)., 2015. Vision and Strategic Plan for
ASEANCooperation in Food, Agriculture and Forestry (2016-2025).
Bajželj, B., Richards, K., 2014. The positive feedback loop between the impacts of climate
change and agricultural expansion and relocation. Land 3, 898–916. https://doi.org/
10.3390/land3030898.
Baker, J.M., Ochsner, T.E., Venterea, R.T., Griffis, T.J., 2007. Tillage and soil carbon
sequestration—what do we really know. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 118, 1–5. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.014.
Bass, A.M., Bird, M.I., Kay, G., Muirhead, B., 2016. Soil properties, greenhouse gas
emissions and crop yield under compost, biochar and co-composted biochar in two
tropical agronomic systems. Sci. Total Environ. 550, 459–470. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.143.
Bebber, D.P., Ramotowski, M.A.T., Gurr, S.J., 2013. Crop pests and pathogens move
polewards in a warming world. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 985–988. https://doi.org/
10.1038/nclimate1990.
Besar, N., Suardi, H., Phua, M., James, D., Bin Mokhtar, M., Ahmed, M., 2020. Carbon
stock and sequestration potential of an agroforestry system in Sabah, Malaysia.
Forests 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11020210.
Bhattacharyya, R., Yi, Z., Yongmei, L., Li, T., Panomtaranichagul, M., Peukrai, S.,
Thu, D., Cuong, T., Toan, T., Jankauskas, B., Jankauskiene, G., Fullen, M.,
Subedi, M., Booth, C., 2012. Effects of biological geotextiles on aboveground
biomass production in selected agro-ecosystems. Field Crops Res. 126, 23–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2011.09.006.
Bossio, D.A., Cook-Patton, S.C., Ellis, P.W., Fargione, J., Sanderman, J., Smith, P.,
Wood, S., Zomer, R.J., von Unger, M., Emmer, I.M., Griscom, B.W., 2020. The role of
soil carbon in natural climate solutions. Nat. Sustain. 3, 391–398. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41893-020-0491-z.
Boucher, O., Friedlingstein, P., Collins, B., Shine, K.P., 2009. The indirect global warming
potential and global temperature change potential due to methane oxidation.
Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 044007 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/044007.
Bradford, M.A., Carey, C.J., Atwood, L., Bossio, D., Fenichel, E.P., Gennet, S.,
Fargione, J., Fisher, J.R.B., Fuller, E., Kane, D.A., Lehmann, J., Oldfield, E.E.,
Ordway, E.M., Rudek, J., Sanderman, J., Wood, S.A., 2019. Soil carbon science for
policy and practice. Nat. Sustain. 2, 1070–1072. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-
019-0431-y.
Brar, B.S., Singh, K., Dheri, G.S., Kumar, Balwinder, 2013. Carbon sequestration and soil
carbon pools in a rice?wheat cropping system: Effect of long-term use of inorganic
fertilizers and organic manure. Soil Tillage Res. 128, 30–36. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.still.2012.10.001.
Broekhoff, D., Gillenwater, M., Colbert-Sangree, T., Cage, P., 2019. Securing climate
benefit: a guide to using carbon offsets. Stockholm Environment Institute &
Greenhouse Gas Management Institute. Offsetguide.org/pdf-download/ (accessed 2
February 2023).
Bronson, K., Neue, H., Singh, U., Abao, E., 1997. Automated chamber measurements of
methane and nitrous oxide flux in a flooded rice soil.1. Residue, nitrogen, and water
management. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61, 981–987. https://doi.org/10.2136/
sssaj1997.03615995006100030038x.
18
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
Bruun, T., Egay, K., Mertz, O., Magid, J., 2013. Improved sampling methods document
decline in soil organic carbon stocks and concentrations of permanganate oxidizable
carbon after transition from swidden to oil palm cultivation. Agric., Ecosyst.
Environ. 178, 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.06.018.
Bruun, T.B., de Neergaard, A., Lawrence, D., Ziegler, A.D., 2009. Environmental
consequences of the demise in swidden cultivation in southeast asia: carbon storage
and soil quality. Hum. Ecol. 37, 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-
9257-y.
Bruun, T.B., Ryan, C.M., de Neergaard, A., Berry, N.J., 2021. Soil organic carbon stocks
maintained despite intensification of shifting cultivation. Geoderma 388, 114804.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114804.
Bullock, D.G., 1992. Crop rotation. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 11, 309–326. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07352689209382349.
Burra, D.D., Parker, L., Than, N.T., Phengsavanh, P., Long, C.T.M., Ritzema, R.S.,
Sagemueller, F., Douxchamps, S., 2021. Drivers of land use complexity along an
agricultural transition gradient in Southeast Asia. Ecol. Indic. 124, 107402 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107402.
Cai, Z., Shan, Y., Xu, H., 2007. Effects of nitrogen fertilization on CH 4 emissions from
rice fields. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 53, 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-
0765.2007.00153.x.
Cairns, M., Garrity, D.P., 1999. Improving shifting cultivation in Southeast Asia by
building on indigenous fallow management strategies.
Cardoso, A., Laviola, B.G., Santos, G.S., de Sousa, H.U., de Oliveira, H.B., Veras, L.C.,
Ciannella, R., Favaro, S.P., 2017. Opportunities and challenges for sustainable
production of A. aculeata through agroforestry systems. Ind. Crops Prod. 107,
573–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.04.023.
Celik, I., Gunal, H., Budak, M., Akpinar, C., 2010. Effects of long-term organic and
mineral fertilizers on bulk density and penetration resistance in semi-arid
Mediterranean soil conditions. Geoderma 160, 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoderma.2010.09.028.
Challinor, A.J., Simelton, E.S., Fraser, E.D.G., Hemming, D., Collins, M., 2010. Increased
crop failure due to climate change: assessing adaptation options using models and
socio-economic data for wheat in China. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 034012 https://doi.
org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034012.
Chareonsilp, N., Buddhaboon, C., Promnart, P., Wassmann, R., Lantin, R., 2000. Methane
emission from deepwater rice fields in Thailand. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 58,
121–130. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009890418537.
Chen, J., Gong, Y., Wang, S., Guan, B., Balkovic, J., Kraxner, F., 2019. To burn or retain
crop residues on croplands? An integrated analysis of crop residue management in
China. Sci. Total Environ. 662, 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.01.150.
Committee on Developing a Research Agenda for Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable
Sequestration, 2019. Board on atmospheric sciences and climate, board on energy
and environmental systems, board on agriculture and natural resources, board on
earth sciences and resources, board on chemical sciences and technology, ocean
studies board, division on earth and life studies, national academies of sciences,
engineering, and medicine. Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable
Sequestration: A Research Agenda. National Academies Press,, Washington, D.C.
https://doi.org/10.17226/25259.
Conceição, P.C., Dieckow, J., Bayer, C., 2013. Combined role of no-tillage and cropping
systems in soil carbon stocks and stabilization. Soil Tillage Res. 129, 40–47. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2013.01.006.
Cornell University., n.d. SRI Methodologies. http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/aboutsri/
methods/index.html (accessed 15 July 2022).
Corton, T., Bajita, J., Grospe, F., Pamplona, R., Assis, C., Wassmann, R., Lantin, R.,
Buendia, L., 2000. Methane emission from irrigated and intensively managed rice
fields in Central Luzon (Philippines). Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 58, 37–53. https://
doi.org/10.1023/A:1009826131741.
Couwenberg, J., Dommain, R., Joosten, H., 2010. Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical
peatlands in south-east Asia. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 1715–1732. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02016.x.
Crumpler, K., Dasgupta, S., Federici, S., Meybeck, M., Bloise, M., Slivinska, V.,
Salvatore, M., Damen, B., Von Loeben, S., Wolf, J., Bernoux, M., 2020. Regional
analysis of the nationally determined contributions in Asia – Gaps and opportunities
in the agriculture and land use sectors. Environment and Natural Resources
Management Working Paper No. 78. FAO,, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/
ca7264en.
Dam, R.F., Mehdi, B.B., Burgess, M.S.E., Madramootoo, C.A., Mehuys, G.R., Callum, I.R.,
2005. Soil bulk density and crop yield under eleven consecutive years of corn with
different tillage and residue practices in a sandy loam soil in central Canada. Soil
Tillage Res. 84, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.08.006.
De Stefano, A., Jacobson, M.G., 2017. Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems:
a meta-analysis. Agroforest Syst. 91 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-
0147-9.
Dechert, G., Veldkamp, E., Anas, I., 2004. Is soil degradation unrelated to deforestation?
Examining soil parameters of land use systems in upland Central Sulawesi,
Indonesia. Plant Soil 265, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-005-0885-8.
Dewi, W., Widijanto, H., Nofiantoro, S., 2018. The potential of pineapple rotations to
improve chemical properties of ultisols. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 24, 99–105.
Dhyani, S., Murthy, I.K., Kadaverugu, R., Dasgupta, R., Kumar, M., Adesh Gadpayle, K.,
2021. Agroforestry to achieve global climate adaptation and mitigation targets: are
south asian countries sufficiently prepared. Forests 12, 303. https://doi.org/
10.3390/f12030303.
Dipu, M.A., Jones, N.A., Aziz, A.A., 2022. Drivers and barriers to uptake of regenerative
agriculture in southeast Queensland: a mental model study. Agroecol. Sustain. Food
Syst. 46, 1502–1526. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2022.2114120.
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
Doan, T., Sisouvanh, P., Sengkhrua, T., Sritumboon, S., Rumpel, C., Jouquet, P.,
Bottinelli, N., 2021. Site-specific effects of organic amendments on parameters of
tropical agricultural soil and yield: a field experiment in three countries in southeast
Asia. Agron.-BASEL 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020348.
Don, A., Schumacher, J., Freibauer, A., 2011. Impact of tropical land-use change on soil
organic carbon stocks – a meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 1658–1670. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02336.x.
Drawdown, n.d. Regenerative Annual Cropping. 〈https://www.drawdown.org/solutions
/regenerative-annual-cropping〉 (accessed 2 February 2023).
Dressler, W., Wilson, D., Clendenning, J., Cramb, R., Keenan, R., Mahanty, S., Bruun, T.,
Mertz, O., Lasco, R., 2017. The impact of swidden decline on livelihoods and
ecosystem services in Southeast Asia: A review of the evidence from 1990 to 2015.
AMBIO 46, 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0836-z.
Drever, C.R., Cook-Patton, S.C., Akhter, F., Badiou, P.H., Chmura, G.L., Davidson, S.J.,
Desjardins, R.L., Dyk, A., Fargione, J.E., Fellows, M., Filewod, B., Hessing-Lewis, M.,
Jayasundara, S., Keeton, W.S., Kroeger, T., Lark, T.J., Le, E., Leavitt, S.M.,
LeClerc, M.-E., Lemprière, T.C., Metsaranta, J., McConkey, B., Neilson, E., St-
Laurent, G.P., Puric-Mladenovic, D., Rodrigue, S., Soolanayakanahally, R.Y.,
Spawn, S.A., Strack, M., Smyth, C., Thevathasan, N., Voicu, M., Williams, C.A.,
Woodbury, P.B., Worth, D.E., Xu, Z., Yeo, S., Kurz, W.A., 2021. Natural climate
solutions for Canada. Sci. Adv. 7, eabd6034. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.
abd6034.
Enang, R.K., Yerima, B.P.K., Kome, G.K., Van Ranst, E., 2018. Assessing the effectiveness
of the walkley-black method for soil organic carbon determination in tephra soils of
cameroon. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 49, 2379–2386. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00103624.2018.1510948.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2022. FAOSTAT.
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/EL (accessed 15 July 2022).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), n.d. Conservation
Agriculture. https://www.fao.org/conservation-agriculture/en/ (accessed 15 July
2022).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)., n.d. Agroforestry.
https://www.fao.org/forestry/agroforestry/80338/en/ (accessed 15 July 2022).
Fujii, K., Sukartiningsih, Hayakawa, C., Inagaki, Y., Kosaki, T., 2020. Effects of land use
change on turnover and storage of soil organic matter in a tropical forest. Plant Soil
446, 425–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04367-5.
Funakawa, S., Tanaka, S., Shinjyo, H., Kaewkhongkha, T., Hattori, T., Yonebayashi, K.,
1997. Ecological study on the dynamics of soil organic matter and its related
properties in shifting cultivation systems of Northern Thailand. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.
43, 681–693. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.1997.10414793.
Ginting, D., Kessavalou, A., Eghball, B., Doran, J.W., 2003. Greenhouse gas emissions
and soil indicators four years after manure and compost applications. J. Environ.
Qual. 32, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2003.2300.
Goh, K.M., 2011. Greater mitigation of climate change by organic than conventional
agriculture: a review. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 27, 205–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01448765.2011.9756648.
Gregorich, E.G., Drury, C.F., Baldock, J.A., 2001. Changes in soil carbon under long-term
maize in monoculture and legume-based rotation. Can. J. Soil Sci. 81, 21–31.
https://doi.org/10.4141/S00-041.
Griscom, B.W., Adams, J., Ellis, P.W., Houghton, R.A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D.A.,
Schlesinger, W.H., Shoch, D., Siikamäki, J.V., Smith, P., Woodbury, P., Zganjar, C.,
Blackman, A., Campari, J., Conant, R.T., Delgado, C., Elias, P., Gopalakrishna, T.,
Hamsik, M.R., Herrero, M., Kiesecker, J., Landis, E., Laestadius, L., Leavitt, S.M.,
Minnemeyer, S., Polasky, S., Potapov, P., Putz, F.E., Sanderman, J., Silvius, M.,
Wollenberg, E., Fargione, J., 2017. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 114, 11645–11650. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
Hairiah, K., van Noordwijk, M., Sari, R., Saputra, D., Widianto, Suprayogo, D.,
Kurniawan, S., Prayogo, C., Gusli, S., 2020. Soil carbon stocks in Indonesian (agro)
forest transitions: Compaction conceals lower carbon concentrations in standard
accounting. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agee.2020.106879.
Hanafi, M., Salwa, H., 1998. Cadmium and zinc in acid tropical soils: II. Influence of
humic acid addition on soil properties and their adsorption. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant
Anal. 29, 1933–1947. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103629809370083.
Hardcastle, D., Mattios, G., Wu, E., Teo, F., 2022. Southeast Asia’s green economy 2022
report: Investing behind new realities. Bain and Temasek, with contributions from
Microsoft. https://www.bain.com/insights/southeast-asias-green-economy-2022/
(accessed 2 February 2023).
Harun, N., Hanafiah, M., Nizam, N., Rasool, A., 2020. Water and soil physicochemical
characteristics of different rice cultivation areas. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 18,
6775–6791. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1805_67756791.
He, Y., Siemens, J., Amelung, W., Goldbach, H., Wassmann, R., Alberto, M., Lucke, A.,
Lehndorff, E., 2015. Carbon release from rice roots under paddy rice and maize-
paddy rice cropping. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 210, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agee.2015.04.029.
He, Y., Zhou, X., Jiang, L., Li, M., Du, Z., Zhou, G., Shao, J., Wang, X., Xu, Z., Hosseini
Bai, S., Wallace, H., Xu, C., 2017. Effects of biochar application on soil greenhouse
gas fluxes: a meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 9, 743–755. https://doi.
org/10.1111/gcbb.12376.
Hepp, C.M., de Neergaard, A., Bruun, T.B., 2018. Short-term fallow in extensive upland
shifting cultivation systems of Northern Lao PDR: Its role in soil fertility restoration.
Land Degrad. Dev. 29, 2911–2919. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3032.
Hernanz, J.L., Sánchez-Girón, V., Navarrete, L., 2009. Soil carbon sequestration and
stratification in a cereal/leguminous crop rotation with three tillage systems in
semiarid conditions. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 133, 114–122. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.agee.2009.05.009.
19
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
Hok, L., Sa, J., Boulakia, S., Reyes, M., Ferreira, A., Tivet, F., Saab, S., Auccaise, R.,
Inagaki, T., Schimiguel, R., Ferreira, L., Briedis, C., Canalli, L., Kong, R., Leng, V.,
2021. Dynamics of soil aggregate-associated organic carbon based on diversity and
high biomass-C input under conservation agriculture in a savanna ecosystem in
Cambodia. Catena 198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2020.105065.
Htwe, T., Techato, K., Chotikarn, P., Sinutok, S., 2021. Grain yield and environmental
impacts of alternative rice (Orzya Sativa L.) establishment methods in Myanmar.
Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 19, 507–524. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1901_
507524.
Hussain, K., Wongleecharoen, C., Hilger, T., Vanderborght, J., Garre, S., Onsamrarn, W.,
Sparke, M., Diels, J., Kongkaew, T., Cadisch, G., 2015. Combining delta C-13
measurements and ERT imaging: improving our understanding of competition at the
crop-soil-hedge interface. Plant Soil 393, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-
015-2455-z.
IPCC, 2022. Summary for Policymakers ([H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S.
Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V.
Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]). In: Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Poloczanska, E.
S., Mintenbeck, K., Tignor, M., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S.,
Möller, V., Okem, A. (Eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/
9781009325844.001 ([H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K.
Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B.
Rama (eds.)]).
Jaiarree, S., Chidthaisong, A., Tangtham, N., Polprasert, C., Sarobol, E., Tyler, S., 2014.
Carbon budget and sequestration potential in a sandy soil treated with compost.
Land Degrad. Dev. 25, 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1152.
Jakrawatana, N., Gheewala, S., Towprayoon, S., 2019. Carbon flow and management in
regional rice production in Thailand. Carbon Manag. 10, 93–103. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17583004.2018.1555491.
Janz, B., Weller, S., Kraus, D., Racela, H., Wassmann, R., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Kiese, R.,
2019. Greenhouse gas footprint of diversifying rice cropping systems: Impacts of
water regime and organic amendments. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 270, 41–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.10.011.
Jeong, S.T., Cho, S.R., Lee, J.G., Kim, P.J., Kim, G.W., 2019. Composting and compost
application: trade-off between greenhouse gas emission and soil carbon
sequestration in whole rice cropping system. J. Clean. Prod. 212, 1132–1142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.011.
Jian, J., Du, X., Reiter, M.S., Stewart, R.D., 2020. A meta-analysis of global cropland soil
carbon changes due to cover cropping. Soil Biol. Biochem. 143, 107735 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107735.
Jordon, M.W., Smith, P., Long, P.R., Bürkner, P.-C., Petrokofsky, G., Willis, K.J., 2022.
Can Regenerative Agriculture increase national soil carbon stocks? Simulated
country-scale adoption of reduced tillage, cover cropping, and ley-arable integration
using RothC. Sci. Total Environ. 825, 153955 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2022.153955.
Jose, S., 2009. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an
overview. Agrofor. Syst. 76, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7.
Jouquet, P., Plumere, T., Thuy, D., Rumpel, C., Toan, T., Orange, D., 2010. The
rehabilitation of tropical soils using compost and vermicompost is affected by the
presence of endogeic earthworms. Appl. Soil Ecol. 46, 125–133. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apsoil.2010.07.002.
Kalembasa, S.J., Jenkinson, D.S., 1973. A comparative study of titrimetric and
gravimetric methods for the determination of organic carbon in soil. J. Sci. Food
Agric. 24, 1085–1090. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740240910.
Karuru, S.S., Rasyid, B., Millang, S., 2021. Carbon stock estimation on some land cover:
secondary forest, agroforestry, palm oil plantation and paddy fields. IOP Conf. Ser.:
Earth Environ. Sci. 637, 012056 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/637/1/
012056.
Kaye, J.P., Quemada, M., 2017. Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate
change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37, 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-
0410-x.
Khasanah, N., van Noordwijk, M., 2019. Subsidence and carbon dioxide emissions in a
smallholder peatland mosaic in Sumatra, Indonesia. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob.
Change 24, 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-018-9803-2.
King, A.E., Blesh, J., 2018. Crop rotations for increased soil carbon: perenniality as a
guiding principle. Ecol. Appl. 28, 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1648.
Kraus, D., Werner, C., Janz, B., Klatt, S., Sander, B., Wassmann, R., Kiese, R., Butterbach-
Bahl, K., 2022. Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of alternate wetting and drying
for rice production at national scale-a modeling case study for the Philippines.
J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences 127. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JG006848.
Kroeksakul, P., Silprasit, K., Phowan, N., Ngamniyom, A., Singhaboot, P., 2022. Soil
element assessment in organic paddy fields in the thung kula ronghai zone, Thailand.
Pertanika J. Trop. Agric. Sci. 45, 391–409. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjtas.45.2.04.
Lal, R., 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food
security. Science 304, 1623–1627. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396.
Lal, R., 2004. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123, 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.01.032.
Lal, R., 2015. Soil carbon sequestration and aggregation by cover cropping. J. Soil Water
Conserv. 70, 329–339. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.70.6.329.
Lam, S., Pham, G., Nguyen-Viet, H., 2017. Emerging health risks from agricultural
intensification in Southeast Asia: a systematic review. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health
23, 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10773525.2018.1450923.
Lamb, W.F., Wiedmann, T., Pongratz, J., Andrew, R., Crippa, M., Olivier, J.G.J.,
Wiedenhofer, D., Mattioli, G., Khourdajie, A.A., House, J., Pachauri, S., Figueroa, M.,
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
Saheb, Y., Slade, R., Hubacek, K., Sun, L., Ribeiro, S.K., Khennas, S., de la Rue du
Can, S., Chapungu, L., Davis, S.J., Bashmakov, I., Dai, H., Dhakal, S., Tan, X.,
Geng, Y., Gu, B., Minx, J., 2021. A review of trends and drivers of greenhouse gas
emissions by sector from 1990 to 2018. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 073005 https://doi.
org/10.1088/1748-9326/abee4e.
Lee, K.S., Choe, Y.C., Park, S.H., 2015. Measuring the environmental effects of organic
farming: a meta-analysis of structural variables in empirical research. J. Environ.
Manag. 162, 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.07.021.
Lehtinen, T., Schlatter, N., Baumgarten, A., Bechini, L., Krüger, J., Grignani, C.,
Zavattaro, L., Costamagna, C., Spiegel, H., 2014. Effect of crop residue incorporation
on soil organic carbon and greenhouse gas emissions in European agricultural soils.
Soil Use Manag. 30, 524–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12151.
Li, M., Xiong, Y., Cai, L., 2021. Effects of biochar on the soil carbon cycle in
agroecosystems: an promising way to increase the carbon pool in dryland. IOP Conf.
Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 693, 012082 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/693/1/
012082.
Liang, B., Lehmann, J., Sohi, S.P., Thies, J.E., O’Neill, B., Trujillo, L., Gaunt, J.,
Solomon, D., Grossman, J., Neves, E.G., Luizão, F.J., 2010. Black carbon affects the
cycling of non-black carbon in soil. Org. Geochem. 41, 206–213. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.orggeochem.2009.09.007.
Lienhard, P., Tivet, F., Chabanne, A., Dequiedt, S., Lelièvre, M., Sayphoummie, S.,
Leudphanane, B., Prévost-Bouré, N.C., Séguy, L., Maron, P.-A., Ranjard, L., 2013. No-
till and cover crops shift soil microbial abundance and diversity in Laos tropical
grasslands. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33, 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-
0099-4.
Lin, H.-I., Yu, Y.-Y., Wen, F.-I., Liu, P.-T., 2022. Status of food security in east and
southeast asia and challenges of climate change. Climate 10, 40. https://doi.org/
10.3390/cli10030040.
Linquist, B.A., Adviento-Borbe, M.A., Pittelkow, C.M., van Kessel, C., van Groenigen, K.
J., 2012. Fertilizer management practices and greenhouse gas emissions from rice
systems: A quantitative review and analysis. Field Crops Res. 135, 10–21. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.06.007.
Linquist, B.A., Anders, M.M., Adviento-Borbe, M.A.A., Chaney, R.L., Nalley, L.L., da
Rosa, E.F.F., Kessel, C., 2015. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and
grain arsenic levels in rice systems. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 407–417. https://doi.org/
10.1111/gcb.12701.
Liu, X., Mao, P., Li, L., Ma, J., 2019. Impact of biochar application on yield-scaled
greenhouse gas intensity: a meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 656, 969–976. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.396.
Lu, Y., Wassmann, R., Neue, H., Huang, C., Bueno, C., 2000. Methanogenic responses to
exogenous substrates in anaerobic rice soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 32, 1683–1690.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00085-7.
Marasini, S., Joshi, T.N., Amgain, L.P., 2016. Direct seeded rice cultivation method: a
new technology for climate change and food security. J. Agric. Environ. 17, 30–36.
Matsumoto, N., Nobuntou, W., Punlai, N., Sugino, T., Rujikun, P., Luanmanee, S.,
Kawamura, K., 2021. Soil carbon sequestration on a maize-mung bean field with rice
straw mulch, no-tillage, and chemical fertilizer application in Thailand from 2011 to
2015. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 67, 190–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00380768.2020.1857660.
McClelland, S.C., Paustian, K., Schipanski, M.E., 2021. Management of cover crops in
temperate climates influences soil organic carbon stocks: a meta-analysis. Ecol. Appl.
31. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2278.
Mikolajczyk, S., 2021. Unlocking smallholder finance for sustainable agriculture in
southeast Asia, Date: February 2021. ed. WWF Germany, Berlin.
Minasny, B., Sulaeman, Y., McBratney, A., 2011. Is soil carbon disappearing? The
dynamics of soil organic carbon in Java. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 1917–1924. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02324.x.
Minasny, B., Malone, B., McBratney, A., Angers, D., Arrouays, D., Chambers, A.,
Chaplot, V., Chen, Z., Cheng, K., Das, B., Field, D., Gimona, A., Hedley, C., Hong, S.,
Mandal, B., Marchant, B., Martin, M., McConkey, B., Mulder, V., O’Rourke, S.,
Richer-de-Forges, A., Odeh, I., Padarian, J., Paustian, K., Pan, G., Poggio, L.,
Savin, I., Stolbovoy, V., Stockmann, U., Sulaeman, Y., Tsui, C., Vagen, T., van
Wesemael, B., Winowiecki, L., 2017. Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma 292, 59–86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.01.002.
Mishra, A., Ketelaar, J., Uphoff, N., Whitten, M., 2021. Food security and climate-smart
agriculture in the lower Mekong basin of Southeast Asia: evaluating impacts of
system of rice intensification with special reference to rainfed agriculture. Int. J.
Agric. Sustain. 19, 152–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2020.1866852.
Miura, T., Niswati, A., Swibawa, I., Haryani, S., Gunito, H., Kaneko, N., 2013. No tillage
and bagasse mulching alter fungal biomass and community structure during
decomposition of sugarcane leaf litter in Lampung Province, Sumatra, Indonesia.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 58, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.10.042.
Mohammadi, A., Cowie, A., Mai, T., de la Rosa, R., Brandao, M., Kristiansen, P.,
Joseph, S., 2016. In: Ask, M., Bruckman, V., Juhlin, C., Kempka, T., Kuhn, M. (Eds.),
Quantifying the greenhouse gas reduction benefits of utilising straw biochar and
enriched biochar, 2016. Presented at the European Geosciences Union General
Assembly, pp. 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.10.069.
Muchane, M.N., Sileshi, G.W., Gripenberg, S., Jonsson, M., Pumariño, L., Barrios, E.,
2020. Agroforestry boosts soil health in the humid and sub-humid tropics: a meta-
analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 295, 106899 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agee.2020.106899.
Murray, B.C., Sohngen, B., Ross, M.T., 2007. Economic consequences of consideration of
permanence, leakage and additionality for soil carbon sequestration projects. Clim.
Change 80, 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9169-4.
Naklang, K., Whitbread, A., Lefroy, R., Blair, G., Wonprasaid, S., Konboon, Y., Suriya-
arunroj, D., 1999. The management of rice straw, fertilisers and leaf litters in rice
20
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
cropping systems in Northeast Thailand - 1. Soil carbon dynamics. Plant Soil 209,
21–28. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004571015620.
Nayak, P., Patel, D., Ramakrishnan, B., Mishra, A.K., Samantaray, R.N., 2009. Long-term
application effects of chemical fertilizer and compost on soil carbon under intensive
rice–rice cultivation. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 83, 259–269. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10705-008-9217-8.
de Neergaard, A., Magid, J., Mertz, O., 2008. Soil erosion from shifting cultivation and
other smallholder land use in Sarawak, Malaysia. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 125,
182–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.12.013.
Neue, H.U., 1997. Fluxes of methane from rice fields and potential for mitigation. Soil
Use Manag. 13, 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.1997.tb00597.x.
Ngo, P., Rumpel, C., Thu, T., Henry-des-Tureaux, T., Dang, D., Jouquet, P., 2014. Use of
organic substrates for increasing soil organic matter quality and carbon
sequestration of tropical degraded soil: a 3-year mesocosms experiment. Carbon
Manag. 5, 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2014.912868.
Ocampo, N., Zamora, O., 2016. Carbon storage of corn-based cropping systems in
Isabela, Philippines. Philipp. J. Crop Sci. 41, 20–29.
OECD, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2017. OECD-FAO
Agricultural Outlook 2017–2026, OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook. OECD. https://
doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2017-en.
Oechaiyaphum, K., Ullah, H., Shrestha, R., Datta, A., 2020. Impact of long-term
agricultural management practices on soil organic carbon and soil fertility of paddy
fields in Northeastern Thailand. Geodermal Reg. 22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geodrs.2020.e00307.
Ogle, S.M., Breidt, F.J., Paustian, K., 2005. Agricultural management impacts on soil
organic carbon storage under moist and dry climatic conditions of temperate and
tropical regions. Biogeochemistry 72, 87–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-
004-0360-2.
Ogle, S.M., Swan, A., Paustian, K., 2012. No-till management impacts on crop
productivity, carbon input and soil carbon sequestration. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ.
149, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.010.
Oldfield, E.E., Bradford, M.A., Wood, S.A., 2019. Global meta-analysis of the relationship
between soil organic matter and crop yields. Soil 5, 15–32. https://doi.org/10.5194/
soil-5-15-2019.
Pandey, A., Mai, V., Vu, D., Bui, T., Mai, T., Jensen, L., de Neergaard, A., 2014. Organic
matter and water management strategies to reduce methane and nitrous oxide
emissions from rice paddies in Vietnam. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 196, 137–146.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.06.010.
Park, M.S., Baral, H., Shin, S., 2022. Systematic approach to agroforestry policies and
practices in Asia. Forests 13, 635. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13050635.
Pathak, H., Sankhyan, S., Dubey, D.S., Bhatia, A., Jain, N., 2013. Dry direct-seeding of
rice for mitigating greenhouse gas emission: field experimentation and simulation.
Paddy Water Environ. 11, 593–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-012-0352-0.
Pauli, N., Donough, C., Oberthur, T., Cock, J., Verdooren, R., Rahmadsyah,
Abdurrohim, G., Indrasuara, K., Lubis, A., Dolong, T., Pasuquin, J., 2014. Changes in
soil quality indicators under oil palm plantations following application of “best
management practices” in a four-year field trial. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 195,
98–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.05.005.
Paustian, K., Chenu, C., Conant, R., Cotrufo, F., Lal, R., Smith, P., Soussana, J., 2020.
Climate Mitigation Potential of Regenerative Agriculture is significant! https://
scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/tsearchi/files/paustian_et_al._response_to_
wri_soil_carbon_blog_.pdf (accessed 15 July 2022).
Pheap, S., Lefevre, C., Thoumazeau, A., Leng, V., Boulakia, S., Koy, R., Hok, L.,
Lienhard, P., Brauman, A., Tivet, F., 2019. Multi-functional assessment of soil health
under Conservation Agriculture in Cambodia. Soil Tillage Res. 194. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.still.2019.104349.
Porwollik, V., Rolinski, S., Heinke, J., von Bloh, W., Schaphoff, S., Müller, C., 2022. The
role of cover crops for cropland soil carbon, nitrogen leaching, and agricultural
yields – a global simulation study with LPJmL (V. 5.0-tillage-cc). Biogeosciences 19,
957–977. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-957-2022.
Powlson, D., Boddey, R., Cassman, K.G., Chivenge, P., Giller, K., Goulding, K., van Kessel,
C., Palm, C., van Groenigen, J.W., 2020. Letter to World Resources Institute
Regarding Soil Carbon Sequestration. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/
files/tsearchi/files/letter_from_powlson_et_al._to_wri_in_support_of_soil_carbon_
chapter_august_2020_.pdf (accessed 15 July 2022).
Prestele, R., Hirsch, A.L., Davin, E.L., Seneviratne, S.I., Verburg, P.H., 2018. A spatially
explicit representation of conservation agriculture for application in global change
studies. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 4038–4053. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14307.
Puget, P., Chenu, C., Balesdent, J., 1995. Total and young organic matter distributions in
aggregates of silty cultivated soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 46, 449–459. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-2389.1995.tb01341.x.
Purwanto, E., Santoso, H., Jelsma, I., Widayati, A., Nugroho, H.Y.S.H., van
Noordwijk, M., 2020. Agroforestry as policy option for forest-zone oil palm
production in Indonesia. Land 9, 531. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9120531.
Ramachandran Nair, P.K., Mohan Kumar, B., Nair, V.D., 2009. Agroforestry as a strategy
for carbon sequestration. Z. für Pflanzenerna¨hr. und Bodenkd. 172, 10–23. https://
doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200800030.
Regional analysis of the nationally determined contributions in Asia, 2020. FAO. https://
doi.org/10.4060/ca7264en.
Ren, F., Zhang, X., Liu, J., Sun, N., Wu, L., Li, Z., Xu, M., 2017. A synthetic analysis of
greenhouse gas emissions from manure amended agricultural soils in China. Sci.
Rep. 7, 8123. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-07793-6.
Rigon, J.P.G., Calonego, J.C., 2020. Soil carbon fluxes and balances of crop rotations
under long-term no-till. Carbon Balance Manag. 15, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s13021-020-00154-3.
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
Roper, W.R., Robarge, W.P., Osmond, D.L., Heitman, J.L., 2019. Comparing four
methods of measuring soil organic matter in north carolina soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
83, 466–474. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2018.03.0105.
Sanchis, E., Ferrer, M., Torres, A.G., Cambra-López, M., Calvet, S., 2012. Effect of water
and straw management practices on methane emissions from rice fields: a review
through a meta-analysis. Environ. Eng. Sci. 29, 1053–1062. https://doi.org/
10.1089/ees.2012.0006.
Sarno, Iijima, Lumbanraja, M., Sunyoto, J., Yuliadi, E., Izumi, Y., Watanabe, A., 2004.
Soil chemical properties of an Indonesian red acid soil as affected by land use and
crop management. Soil Tillage Res. 76, 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
still.2003.09.001.
Sass, R.L., Cicerone, R.J., 2002. Photosynthate allocations in rice plants: food production
or atmospheric methane? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 11993–11995. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.202483599.
Schneider, U.A., Havlík, P., Schmid, E., Valin, H., Mosnier, A., Obersteiner, M.,
Böttcher, H., Skalský, R., Balkovič, J., Sauer, T., Fritz, S., 2011. Impacts of
population growth, economic development, and technical change on global food
production and consumption. Agric. Syst. 104, 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agsy.2010.11.003.
Schreefel, L., Schulte, R.P.O., de Boer, I.J.M., Schrijver, A.P., van Zanten, H.H.E., 2020.
Regenerative agriculture – the soil is the base. Glob. Food Secur. 26, 100404 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100404.
Schulte, L.A., Dale, B.E., Bozzetto, S., Liebman, M., Souza, G.M., Haddad, N., Richard, T.
L., Basso, B., Brown, R.C., Hilbert, J.A., Arbuckle, J.G., 2021. Meeting global
challenges with regenerative agriculture producing food and energy. Nat. Sustain. 5,
384–388. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00827-y.
Shah, K.K., Modi, B., Pandey, H.P., Subedi, A., Aryal, G., Pandey, M., Shrestha, J., 2021.
Diversified crop rotation: an approach for sustainable agriculture production. Adv.
Agric. 2021, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8924087.
Shakoor, A., Shakoor, S., Rehman, A., Ashraf, F., Abdullah, M., Shahzad, S.M., Farooq, T.
H., Ashraf, M., Manzoor, M.A., Altaf, M.M., Altaf, M.A., 2021. Effect of animal
manure, crop type, climate zone, and soil attributes on greenhouse gas emissions
from agricultural soils—a global meta-analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 278, 124019 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124019.
Shi, L., Feng, W., Xu, J., Kuzyakov, Y., 2018. Agroforestry systems: meta-analysis of soil
carbon stocks, sequestration processes, and future potentials. Land Degrad. Dev. 29,
3886–3897. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3136.
Shin, S., Soe, K.T., Lee, H., Kim, T.H., Lee, S., Park, M.S., 2020. A systematic map of
agroforestry research focusing on ecosystem services in the Asia-Pacific Region.
Forests 11, 368. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11040368.
Shrestha, R., Ladha, J., Lefroy, R., 2002. Carbon management for sustainability of an
intensively managed rice-based cropping system. Biol. Fertil. Soils 36, 215–223.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-002-0523-z.
Shrestha, R., Ladha, J., Lefroy, R., 2002. Carbon management for sustainability of an
intensively managed rice-based cropping system. Biol. Fertil. Soils 36, 215–223.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-002-0523-z.
Shrestha, R., Schmidt-Vogt, D., Gnanavelrajah, N., 2010. Relating plant diversity to
biomass and soil erosion in a cultivated landscape of the eastern seaboard region of
Thailand. Appl. Geogr. 30, 606–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apgeog.2010.01.005.
Simarani, K., Halmi, M., Abdullah, R., 2018. Short-term effects of biochar amendment on
soil microbial community in humid tropics. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 64, 1847–1860.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2018.1464149.
Six, J., Elliott, E.T., Paustian, K., 1999. Aggregate and soil organic matter dynamics
under conventional and no-tillage systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63, 1350–1358.
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1999.6351350x.
Six, J., Feller, C., Denef, K., Ogle, S.M., de Moraes, J.C., Albrecht, A., 2002. Soil organic
matter, biota and aggregation in temperateand tropical soils - Effects of no-tillage.
Agronomie 22, 755–775. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2002043.
Smith, P., Olesen, J.E., 2010. Synergies between the mitigation of, and adaptation to,
climate change in agriculture. J. Agric. Sci. 148, 543–552. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0021859610000341.
Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., Ogle, S.,
O’Mara, F., Rice, C., Scholes, B., Sirotenko, O., Howden, M., McAllister, T., Pan, G.,
Romanenkov, V., Schneider, U., Towprayoon, S., Wattenbach, M., Smith, J., 2008.
Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 363,
789–813. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2184.
Smith, P., Calvin, K., Nkem, J., Campbell, D., Cherubini, F., Grassi, G., Korotkov, V., Le
Hoang, A., Lwasa, S., McElwee, P., Nkonya, E., Saigusa, N., Soussana, J.-F.,
Taboada, M.A., Manning, F.C., Nampanzira, D., Arias-Navarro, C., Vizzarri, M.,
House, J., Roe, S., Cowie, A., Rounsevell, M., Arneth, A., 2020. Which practices co-
deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land
degradation and desertification? Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1532–1575. https://doi.org/
10.1111/gcb.14878.
Song, K., Zheng, X., Lv, W., Qin, Q., Sun, L., Zhang, H., Xue, Y., 2019. Effects of tillage
and straw return on water-stable aggregates, carbon stabilization and crop yield in
an estuarine alluvial soil. Sci. Rep. 9, 4586. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-
40908-9.
Soon, Y.K., Abboud, S., 1991. A comparison of some methods for soil organic carbon
determination. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 22, 943–954. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00103629109368465.
Squalli, J., Adamkiewicz, G., 2018. Organic farming and greenhouse gas emissions: a
longitudinal U.S. state-level study. J. Clean. Prod. 192, 30–42. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.160.
Sriphirom, P., Chidthaisong, A., Yagi, K., Tripetchkul, S., Towprayoon, S., 2020.
Evaluation of biochar applications combined with alternate wetting and drying
21
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
(AWD) water management in rice field as a methane mitigation option for farmers’
adoption. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 66, 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00380768.2019.1706431.
Sriphirom, P., Chidthaisong, A., Yagi, K., Tripetchkul, S., Boonapatcharoen, N.,
Towprayoon, S., 2021. Effects of biochar on methane emission, grain yield, and soil
in rice cultivation in Thailand. Carbon Manag. 12, 109–121. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17583004.2021.1885257.
Sugino, T., Nohuntou, W., Srisombut, N., Rujikun, P., Luanmanee, S., Punlai, N., 2013.
Effects of long-term organic material applications and green manure crop cultivation
on soil organic carbon in rain fed area of Thailand. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 1,
29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-6339(15)30028-9.
Supparattanapan, S., Saenjan, P., Quantin, C., Maeght, J., Grunberger, O., 2009. Salinity
and organic amendment effects on methane emission from a rain-fed saline paddy
field. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 55, 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-
0765.2008.00330.x.
Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., Hyun, S. (Eds.), 2022. Green Digital Finance and Sustainable
Development Goals, Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific. Springer
Nature, Singapore, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2662-4.
Tao, B., Tian, H., Chen, G., Ren, W., Lu, C., Alley, K.D., Xu, X., Liu, M., Pan, S., Virji, H.,
2013. Terrestrial carbon balance in tropical Asia: Contribution from cropland
expansion and land management. Glob. Planet. Change 100, 85–98. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.09.006.
Tao, H., Snaddon, J., Slade, E., Caliman, J., Widodo, R., Suhardi, Willis, K., 2017. Long-
term crop residue application maintains oil palm yield and temporal stability of
production. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0439-5.
Tautges, N.E., Chiartas, J.L., Gaudin, A.C.M., O’Geen, A.T., Herrera, I., Scow, K.M., 2019.
Deep soil inventories reveal that impacts of cover crops and compost on soil carbon
sequestration differ in surface and subsurface soils. Glob. Change Biol. 25,
3753–3766. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14762.
Thamo, T., Pannell, D.J., 2016. Challenges in developing effective policy for soil carbon
sequestration: perspectives on additionality, leakage, and permanence. Clim. Policy
16, 973–992. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1075372.
Thangarajan, R., Bolan, N.S., Tian, G., Naidu, R., Kunhikrishnan, A., 2013. Role of
organic amendment application on greenhouse gas emission from soil. Sci. Total
Environ. 465, 72–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.031.
Thuithaisong, C., Parkpian, P., Shipin, O., Shrestha, R., Naklang, K., DeLaune, R.,
Jugsujinda, A., 2011. Soil-quality indicators for predicting sustainable organic rice
production. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 42, 548–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00103624.2011.546930.
Toensmeier, E., 2016. The Carbon Farming Solution: A Global Toolkit of Perennial Crops
and Regenerative Agriculture Practices for Climate Change Mitigation and Food
Security. Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, USA.
Tran Ba, L., Le Van, K., Van Elsacker, S., Cornelis, W.M., 2016. Effect of cropping system
on physical properties of clay soil under intensive rice cultivation. Land Degrad. Dev.
27, 973–982. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2321.
Trinh, M., Tesfai, M., Borrell, A., Nagothu, U., Bui, T., Quynh, V., Thanh, L., 2017. Effect
of organic, inorganic and slow-release urea fertilisers on CH4 and N2O emissions
from rice paddy fields. Paddy Water Environ. 15, 317–330. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10333-016-0551-1.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)., 2022. U.S. Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse
Gas Inventory 1990–2018. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
USDA-GHG-Inventory-1990–2018.pdf (accessed 15 July 2022).
Utomo, B., Prawoto, A., Bonnet, S., Bangviwat, A., Gheewala, S., 2016. Environmental
performance of cocoa production from monoculture and agroforestry systems in
Indonesia. J. Clean. Prod. 134, 583–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.08.102.
Vibol, S., Towprayoon, S., 2010. Estimation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from
rice field with rice straw management in Cambodia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 161,
301–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-009-0747-6.
Von Haden, A.C., Yang, W.H., DeLucia, E.H., 2020. Soil’s dirty little secret: depth-based
comparisons can be inadequate for quantifying changes in soil organic carbon and
other mineral soil properties. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3759–3770. https://doi.org/
10.1111/gcb.15124.
Vu, Q., de Neergaard, A., Tran, T.D., Hoang, Q., Ly, P., Tran, T.M., Jensen, L., 2015.
Manure, biogas digestate and crop residue management affects methane gas
emissions from rice paddy fields on Vietnamese smallholder livestock farms. Nutr.
Cycl. Agroecosyst. 103, 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-015-9746-x.
Wang, B., Neue, H.U., Samonte, H.P., 1997. Effect of cultivar difference (‘IR72’,
‘IR65598’ and ‘Dular’) on methane emission. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 62, 31–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(96)01115-2.
Wang, X., Wang, J., Zhang, J., 2012. Comparisons of three methods for organic and
inorganic carbon in calcareous soils of Northwestern China. PLoS ONE 7, e44334.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044334.
Wartenberg, A., Blaser, W., Roshetko, J., Van Noordwijk, M., Six, J., 2020. Soil fertility
andTheobroma cacaogrowth and productivity under commonly intercropped shade-
tree species in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Plant Soil 453, 87–104. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11104-018-03921-x.
Wassmann, R., Aulakh, M., Lantin, R., Rennenberg, H., Aduna, J., 2002. Methane
emission patterns from rice fields planted to several rice cultivars for nine seasons.
Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 64, 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021171303510.
Wassmann, R., Lantin, R.S., Neue, H.U., Buendia, L.V., Corton, T.M., Lu, Y., 2000.
Characterization of methane emissions from rice fields in Asia. III. Mitigation options
and future research needs. In: Wassmann, Reiner, Lantin, Rhoda S., Neue, H.-U.
(Eds.), Methane Emissions from Major Rice Ecosystems in Asia. Springer,
Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0898-3_3.
S.S.X. Tan and S.E. Kuebbing
Wassmann, R., Buendia, L.V., Lantin, R.S., Bueno, C.S., Lubigan, L.A., Umali, A.,
Nocon, N.N., Javellana, A.M., Neue, H.U., 2000. Mechanisms of crop management
impact on methane emissions from rice fields in Los Baños, Philippines. In:
Wassmann, Reiner, Lantin, Rhoda S., Neue, H.U. (Eds.), Methane Emissions from
Major Rice Ecosystems in Asia. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 107–119.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0898-3_10.
Weller, S., Kraus, D., Ayag, K., Wassmann, R., Alberto, M., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Kiese, R.,
2015. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from rice and maize production in
diversified rice cropping systems. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 101, 37–53. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10705-014-9658-1.
West, T.O., Six, J., 2007. Considering the influence of sequestration duration and carbon
saturation on estimates of soil carbon capacity. Clim. Change 80, 25–41. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10584-006-9173-8.
White, K.E., Brennan, E.B., Cavigelli, M.A., Smith, R.F., 2020. Winter cover crops
increase readily decomposable soil carbon, but compost drives total soil carbon
during eight years of intensive, organic vegetable production in California. PLoS
ONE 15, e0228677. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228677.
Wiharso, D., 2021. Changes in soil morphology and properties under long-term soil
management in humid tropical regions of Lampung, Indonesia. Geomate 20. https://
doi.org/10.21660/2021.81.j2081.
Win, E., Win, K., Bellingrath-Kimura, S., Oo, A., 2021. Influence of rice varieties, organic
manure and water management on greenhouse gas emissions from paddy rice soils.
PLoS ONE 16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253755.
World Resources Institute, 2020. Regenerative Agriculture: Good for Soil Health, but
Limited Potential to Mitigate Climate Change. https://www.wri.org/insights/
regenerative-agriculture-good-soil-health-limited-potential-mitigate-climate-change
(accessed 15 July 2022).
Wurz, A., Tscharntke, T., Martin, D.A., Osen, K., Rakotomalala, A.A.N.A.,
Raveloaritiana, E., Andrianisaina, F., Dröge, S., Fulgence, T.R., Soazafy, M.R.,
Andriafanomezantsoa, R., Andrianarimisa, A., Babarezoto, F.S., Barkmann, J.,
Hänke, H., Hölscher, D., Kreft, H., Rakouth, B., Guerrero-Ramírez, N.R.,
Ranarijaona, H.L.T., Randriamanantena, R., Ratsoavina, F.M., Raveloson
Ravaomanarivo, L.H., Grass, I., 2022. Win-win opportunities combining high yields
with high multi-taxa biodiversity in tropical agroforestry. Nat. Commun. 13, 4127.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30866-8.
Yagi, K., Sriphirom, P., Cha-un, N., Fusuwankaya, K., Chidthaisong, A., Damen, B.,
Towprayoon, S., 2020. Potential and promisingness of technical options for
mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from rice cultivation in Southeast Asian
countries. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 66, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00380768.2019.1683890.
Yan, X., Yagi, K., Akiyama, H., Akimoto, H., 2005. Statistical analysis of the major
variables controlling methane emission from rice fields. Glob. Change Biol. 11,
1131–1141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00976.x.
22
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 349 (2023) 108450
Yimyam, N., Lordkaew, S., Rerkasem, B., 2016. Carbon storage in mountain land use
systems in Northern Thailand. Mt. Res. Dev. 36, 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1659/
MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00095.1.
Yu, T., Mahe, L., Li, Y., Wei, X., Deng, X., Zhang, D., 2022. Benefits of crop rotation on
climate resilience and its prospects in China. Agronomy 12, 436. https://doi.org/
10.3390/agronomy12020436.
Yu, Z., Lu, C., Hennessy, D.A., Feng, H., Tian, H., 2020. Impacts of tillage practices on soil
carbon stocks in the US corn-soybean cropping system during 1998 to 2016. Environ.
Res. Lett. 15, 014008 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6393.
Yuan, J., Yuan, Y., Zhu, Y., Cao, L., 2018. Effects of different fertilizers on methane
emissions and methanogenic community structures in paddy rhizosphere soil. Sci.
Total Environ. 627, 770–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.233.
Yuan, S., Stuart, A.M., Laborte, A.G., Rattalino Edreira, J.I., Dobermann, A., Kien, L.V.N.,
Thúy, L.T., Paothong, K., Traesang, P., Tint, K.M., San, S.S., Villafuerte, M.Q.,
Quicho, E.D., Pame, A.R.P., Then, R., Flor, R.J., Thon, N., Agus, F., Agustiani, N.,
Deng, N., Li, T., Grassini, P., 2022. Southeast Asia must narrow down the yield gap to
continue to be a major rice bowl. Nat. Food 3, 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s43016-022-00477-z.
Zhang, Q., Xiao, J., Xue, J., Zhang, L., 2020. Quantifying the effects of biochar
application on greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural soils: a global meta-
analysis. Sustainability 12, 3436. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083436.
Zhang, X., Zhou, S., Bi, J., Sun, H., Wang, C., Zhang, J., 2021. Drought-resistance rice
variety with water-saving management reduces greenhouse gas emissions from
paddies while maintaining rice yields. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 320, 107592 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107592.
Zhang, Z., Nie, J., Liang, H., Wei, C., Wang, Y., Liao, Y., Lu, Y., Zhou, G., Gao, S., Cao, W.,
2022. The effects of co-utilizing green manure and rice straw on soil aggregates and
soil carbon stability in a paddy soil in South China. S2095311922002507 J. Integr.
Agric.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jia.2022.09.025.
Ziegler, A.D., Bruun, T.B., Guardiola-Claramonte, M., Giambelluca, T.W., Lawrence, D.,
Thanh Lam, N., 2009. Environmental consequences of the demise in swidden
cultivation in montane mainland southeast asia: hydrology and geomorphology.
Hum. Ecol. 37, 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9258-x.
Zimmerman, A.R., Ouyang, L., 2019. Priming of pyrogenic C (biochar) mineralization by
dissolved organic matter and vice versa. Soil Biol. Biochem. 130, 105–112. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.12.011.
Zomer, R.J., Neufeldt, H., Xu, J., Ahrends, A., Bossio, D., Trabucco, A., van
Noordwijk, M., Wang, M., 2016. Global Tree Cover and Biomass Carbon on
Agricultural Land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon
budgets. Sci. Rep. 6, 29987. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29987.