IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i24p11260-d1550010.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contrasting Soil Organic Carbon Concentrations and Mass Storage Between Conventional Farming and Organic Farming: A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Tingxuan Zhao

    (Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada)

  • Hiroshi Kubota

    (Lacombe Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe, AB T4L 1W1, Canada)

  • Guillermo Hernandez-Ramirez

    (Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada)

Abstract

This meta-analysis studied the impact of conventional versus organic farming practices on soil organic carbon (SOC) concentrations and mass storage. We aimed to understand the carbon dynamics associated with adopting organic agricultural practices by reviewing and synthesizing data from 1950 to 2023. We analyzed data from 64 experimental field comparisons that involved SOC concentration and mass storage measurements, covering a wide range of studies selected for soil depth analyses, carbon concentration measurements, and comparative methods between conventional and organic systems. Our results indicated a significant increase in SOC under organic agriculture. An analysis of the response ratios (LnRR) for SOC concentration showed variability, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.089–0.149. Similarly, the analysis of carbon storage data indicated a 95% confidence interval of LnRR of 0.053–0.205. These increases in SOC concentration and mass storage reflect the variable but statistically positive impact of organic farming on SOC. Fine soil textures demonstrated the highest mean LnRR for both SOC concentration (0.163) and mass storage (0.173), suggesting the role of soil texture in mediating the effects of organic agriculture on SOC dynamics. Furthermore, there was a significant negative correlation between soil pH and SOC mass storage, with a regression coefficient of −0.174 ( p < 0.039). Although a slight positive correlation was observed between temperature and SOC mass storage as LnRR, other environmental factors likely play a critical role in SOC dynamics. These findings emphasize the complexity of SOC dynamics and the significant impact of organic agriculture on increasing SOC concentrations and mass storage. This study broadly contributes to the debate in sustainable agriculture by providing quantitative evidence of the role and benefits of organic agriculture on climate change mitigation. The results also emphasize the importance of adopting organic farming practices for broadly enhancing ecosystems’ resilience and long-term food security.

Suggested Citation

  • Tingxuan Zhao & Hiroshi Kubota & Guillermo Hernandez-Ramirez, 2024. "Contrasting Soil Organic Carbon Concentrations and Mass Storage Between Conventional Farming and Organic Farming: A Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:11260-:d:1550010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/11260/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/11260/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Magdalena Hábová & Lubica Pospíšilová & Petr Hlavinka & Miroslav Trnka & Gabriela Barančíková & Zuzana Tarasovičová & Jozef Takáč & Štefan Koco & Ladislav Menšík & Pavel Nerušil, 2019. "Carbon pool in soil under organic and conventional farming systems," Soil and Water Research, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 14(3), pages 145-152.
    2. Pretty, J. N. & Brett, C. & Gee, D. & Hine, R. E. & Mason, C. F. & Morison, J. I. L. & Raven, H. & Rayment, M. D. & van der Bijl, G., 2000. "An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 113-136, August.
    3. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    4. Erik Lehnhoff & Zachariah Miller & Perry Miller & Stephen Johnson & Tessa Scott & Patrick Hatfield & Fabian D. Menalled, 2017. "Organic Agriculture and the Quest for the Holy Grail in Water-Limited Ecosystems: Managing Weeds and Reducing Tillage Intensity," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-16, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.
    2. Leah Grout & Simon Hales & Nigel French & Michael G. Baker, 2018. "A Review of Methods for Assessing the Environmental Health Impacts of an Agricultural System," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-27, June.
    3. Chang, Jie & Wu, Xu & Liu, Anqin & Wang, Yan & Xu, Bin & Yang, Wu & Meyerson, Laura A. & Gu, Baojing & Peng, Changhui & Ge, Ying, 2011. "Assessment of net ecosystem services of plastic greenhouse vegetable cultivation in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 740-748, February.
    4. Kanthilanka, H. & Ramilan, T. & Farquharson, R.J. & Weerahewa, J., 2023. "Optimal nitrogen fertilizer decisions for rice farming in a cascaded tank system in Sri Lanka: An analysis using an integrated crop, hydro-nutrient and economic model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    5. Lant, Christopher L. & Kraft, Steven E. & Beaulieu, Jeffrey & Bennett, David & Loftus, Timothy & Nicklow, John, 2005. "Using GIS-based ecological-economic modeling to evaluate policies affecting agricultural watersheds," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 467-484, December.
    6. Baba, S.H. & Wani, S.A., 2018. "Ecosystem Management Approach for Agricultural Growth in Mountains: Farmers Perception of Ecosystem Services and Dis-Services in Kashmir-India," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277556, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Daniel Gaitán-Cremaschi & Frits K. Van Evert & Don M. Jansen & Miranda P. M. Meuwissen & Alfons G. J. M. Oude Lansink, 2018. "Assessing the Sustainability Performance of Coffee Farms in Vietnam: A Social Profit Inefficiency Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-23, November.
    8. Elena Tamburini & Paola Pedrini & Maria Gabriella Marchetti & Elisa Anna Fano & Giuseppe Castaldelli, 2015. "Life Cycle Based Evaluation of Environmental and Economic Impacts of Agricultural Productions in the Mediterranean Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-21, March.
    9. Dale, Virginia H. & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 286-296, December.
    10. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    11. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    12. Shen Yuan & Shaobing Peng, 2017. "Exploring the Trends in Nitrogen Input and Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    13. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    14. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    15. Hualin Xie & Yingqian Huang & Qianru Chen & Yanwei Zhang & Qing Wu, 2019. "Prospects for Agricultural Sustainable Intensification: A Review of Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, October.
    16. Jongeneel, Roel & Polman, Nico & van der Ham, Corinda, 2014. "Costs and benefits associated with the externalities generated by Dutch agriculture," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182705, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    18. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    19. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    20. Eric Tollens, 2004. "Biodiversity versus transgenic sugar beet: the one euro question," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(1), pages 1-18, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:11260-:d:1550010. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.