Sequestration of Carbon on Agricultural Lands

What is Carbon Sequestration?

Terrestrial carbon sequestration is the storage of organic carbon through natural, deliberate, or technological processes in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and stored biologically in terrestrial environments (e.g., vegetation, and organic matter in soils and sediment) and geological formations. (Kaplan et al. 2021) The focus here is on terrestrial carbon sequestration in the context of agriculture by storing carbon in vegetation and soils, as opposed to geological sequestration which stores carbon within rock formations. While natural geological sequestration is part of the slow carbon cycle—requiring many lifetimes to transform carbon into the oil, natural gas, coal, and rock we find deep in the earth—carbon sequestration in the context of agriculture is part of the fast carbon cycle, with changes possible within a lifetime. Due in part to agriculture and agriculture-driven land-use change, the equilibrium of this cycle has been broken. In the last 12,000 years, agriculture has been responsible for an estimated 133 gigatons of loss in soil carbon. (Sanderman et al. 2017)

Natural and working lands, including agricultural lands, provide an opportunity to store carbon. When the rate of carbon inputs being stored in vegetation and soil through photosynthesis exceeds that of carbon being released through decomposition and respiration, carbon is sequestered. (Ramesh et al. 2019) Practices that enable this to occur include land preservation, land restoration, and certain crop management practices. Due to their low incidences of soil disturbances and capabilities of storing carbon in woody biomass like trees, woodlands are great candidates for preservation and restoration (Ledo et al. 2020). As such, restoring current farmland back to woodlands and preserving current woodlands are effective methods to sequester carbon. Existing wetlands, which store disproportionate amounts of soil organic matter due to saturation and oxygen-limited decomposition, can be preserved, and former wetlands can be restored to help sequester carbon. (Wilson et al. 2016) On active working lands, soil/crop and grazing management practices can be adapted to potentially sequester carbon at improved rates compared to those typical for annual cropland and ranchland, which is frequently disturbed through tillage and overgrazing.

Mitigation Potential of Agricultural Working Lands and Natural Lands

Disruption of the carbon cycle has led to the historic rise of carbon dioxide (CO₂) content in the atmosphere, a major contributor to the "greenhouse effect" that is driving climate change, although methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) are also "greenhouse gases" that have increased in the atmosphere due to land use change and management. Mitigation potential is the ability to lessen concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, thereby limiting the impact of climate change. The potential of agricultural and natural lands to accumulate organic matter is an important consideration in mitigating carbon emissions. As of 2024, New Jersey's forests, agricultural land, and wetlands are estimated to sequester 8.1 million metric tons (MMT) of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents (CO₂e), a measure of greenhouse gases emitted in terms of carbon dioxide, offsetting almost 8% of current greenhouse gas emissions. (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2024) In addition to the carbon emissions that they already offset, New Jersey woodlands, agricultural lands, and wetlands are estimated to have the potential to sequester another 2–3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2020)

The duration in which carbon stays in terrestrial reservoirs is important in determining its mitigation potential. While trees are certainly a key component to storing carbon, dead trees can become net emitters of carbon through decomposition. (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2020) As such, proper management of woodlands is critical. Similarly, food and fiber production crops also need to be effectively managed to utilize their carbon-sequestering capabilities. Awareness and more careful management of agricultural lands can restore organic matter (carbon) in soil approaching original/natural levels.

Management Practices to Increase Carbon Sequestration on Agricultural Lands

Agricultural management practices to increase soil carbon can also improve soil health and provide other ecological benefits. These management practices center around tillage, crop choices, grazing management, and soil amendments. Not all these practices are feasible on every farm or field; however, understanding how these practices are beneficial may motivate producers to adopt or adapt them to their specific circumstances where and when possible.

Reduced Till and No-Till

Tillage mechanically manipulates soil to prepare it for seeding, limit weeds, incorporate agricultural inputs, alleviate compaction, and modify soil moisture and temperature. No-till and reduced-till practices do away with tillage or limit the amount of tillage that takes place. Since tillage disturbs the soil, it allows for soil organic carbon to be decomposed and released into the atmosphere as CO₂ or washed away by erosion. Conversion to no-till practices has shown varied results in regard to carbon sequestration. Warmer and wetter climates are found to have more variable rates of soil organic carbon change compared to temperate and drier climates, which gain or lose carbon more slowly in response to tillage management; (Ogle et al. 2005) New Jersey's humid temperate climate would result in moderate rates of change in soil organic carbon as a result of tillage. Reduced tillage is suggested to have similar efficacy as no-till when it comes to reducing carbon loss. (Conant et al. 2007) Impacts on soil organic carbon stores aside, reduced tillage and no-till are shown to improve soil health. These practices preserve soil structure, limit erosion, improve the soil's capture and retention of water, and decrease daytime soil temperature. (Blanco-Canqui and Ruis 2018)

New Jersey farmers are using no-till or reduced tillage practices on more acres of cropland than intensive or conventional tillage practices. In 2022, no-till practices were in use on 15% of New Jersey farms, representing 25% of New Jersey cropland while 16% of total New Jersey cropland was in conservation or reduced tillage practices. Taken together, 40% of NJ cropland took advantage of no-till, conservation or reduced tillage practices in 2022 compared with 18% of NJ cropland that was in intensive or conventional tillage practices. (USDA 2024)

Crop Choices

The choice of types of crops to plant and the timing in which to plant them can impact soil health and increase soil organic carbon content. Management practices that fall under this category include cover cropping, continuous cropping, conversion to legumes or perennial grasses, or planting of high-residue crops. (Paustian et al. 2019)

Cover cropping is a practice in which a farmer plants a crop with the primary purpose of building or maintaining soil health as opposed to harvesting; while typically done in the off-season or in alternate years of the commodity crop, cover crops can also be grown between rows of the commodity crop. Cover cropping reduces erosion (Blanco-Canqui et al. 2012) (Ranaivoson et al. 2017) and increases aggregate stability, water infiltration rate (Steele et al. 2012), and metabolic activities of microbes. (Finney et al. 2017) Tap-rooted cover crops are promoted for alleviation of soil compaction. (Williams and Weil 2004; Blanco-Canqui, and Ruis 2020). Cover cropping also increases soil organic carbon storage while suppressing weeds and pests. (Snapp et al. 2005) Cover crops can also be beneficial in interrows of vegetable crops to increase tolerance to traffic, minimize erosion, and limit splash of soil onto the harvestable crop.

Continuous cropping refers to avoidance of seasonal fallow (bare soil) periods that limit carbon inputs through plants and associated soil food webs. Perennial vegetation falls into the category of continuous cropping. Conversion of marginal or highly erodible crop lands to perennial grasses and legumes can increase organic carbon inputs, decrease organic carbon losses, and improve erosion control. (Paustian et al. 2019)

High-residue crops, which leave significant amounts of biomass on the soil after harvest, not only reduce soil erosion but contribute more to the soil organic matter pools compared to a crop with little residue; an example is corn harvested for grain, which leaves much more biomass in the field than corn harvested for silage. Residue of cover crops as mulch on the soil surface is also beneficial in vegetable production to limit the contact of fruit or vegetable with soil as well as minimizing splash during rainfall or irrigation.

One type of crop choice practice that can be particularly effective in sequestering carbon is agroforestry. Woodlands are capable of sequestering carbon both in the soil and in the trees themselves; agroforestry utilizes this benefit by planting shrubs and trees nearby or among crops or forage for various ecosystem benefits, such as increasing biodiversity, creating habitat for wildlife, and limiting erosion (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2021) in addition to carbon sequestration. Besides these ecosystem benefits, the trees themselves can provide additional farm products such as timber, pulpwood, firewood, posts, fruit, nuts, and fodder. (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2021) While these agroforestry products can provide further income to the farmer or rancher, the wood products—when utilized as construction materials or furniture—also extend the duration that the carbon stays sequestered. (O'Lear et al. 2022) In addition to the production of durable goods, woody biomass could be turned into biochar, a soil amendment material discussed further below.

Grazing Land Management

An important aspect of grazing land management that improves soil health while sequestering carbon is limiting the amount of photosynthetic plant tissue that is removed by grazing. Since this green tissue is the mechanism that allows plants to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, excessive grazing negatively impacts the ability of the plants to sequester carbon. (Dlamini et al. 2016) Strategies to limit overgrazing include managing animal density on controlled areas of pasture or rangeland, with the frequency of livestock movement to new areas determined by assessing forage removal; this is a highly managed form of rotational grazing (Undersander et al. 2002) called adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing. (Teague and Kreuter 2020) Careful management of livestock grazing in these different dimensions allows photosynthesis to continue at robust rates and effectively store carbon.

Soil Amendments

Application of organic-based soil amendments like compost, manure, and biochar provide the soil with additional organic matter and in turn can contribute to soil health and the sequestration of carbon. (Bolan et al. 2012; Brassard et al. 2016) However, the mitigation potential of these activities is dependent on the source of the amendment, since the fossil fuel needed to transport the amendment some distance (which produces greenhouse gases) can easily exceed the additional carbon sequestered from the amendment. (Roberts et al. 2010; Martínez-Blanco et al. 2013). Judicious use of these soil amendments can improve soil health through the addition of nutrients (Duong et al. 2012), stimulation of microbial biomass (Kallenbach et al. 2011), and improvement in soil physical attributes. (Celik et al. 2004) These improved conditions allow for improved growth of the plants, which in turn enables the plants to sequester more carbon. The benefits of soil amendments are also limited by the original condition of the soil relative to the amount of amendment added, with poor-quality soils having the greatest potential to improve. Biochar differs from manure and compost due to its resistance to microbial decay. As such, its amendment to soil is an effective way to sequester carbon (Lehman et al. 2015), assuming it can be produced locally. Biochar can also enhance plant growth and improve crop yield by increasing soil water- and nutrient-holding capacity and therefore improving the capability of vegetation to store carbon. (Ding et al. 2016)

Factors Affecting Carbon Sequestration on Agricultural Lands

Achieving long-term sequestration of carbon is dependent upon several factors, such as soil saturation, permanence/persistence, and measurement and verification.

Saturation

The total amount of soil organic carbon that can be sequestered is limited by the physical attributes of the soil. The soil's texture, minerology, and depth determine the soil's maximum carbon storage capacity. This limitation is called saturation. Soils with high surface area (especially clay) can theoretically store greater amounts of carbon by adhesion and protection of organic matter from further decomposition through the formation of mineral-associated organic matter (MAOM). (Wiesmeier et al. 2019)

Permanence/Persistence

Permanence and persistence refer to requirements for how carbon exists within the soil to be considered "sequestered." Discussions of long-term soil-based "natural climate solutions" to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions are often around permanence, which describes the need for carbon to remain in a certain pool for the duration of carbon offset credits.¹ For example, permanence would require that carbon stays within the biomass of a tree—typically for 100 years (Murray et al. 2007) to be sequestered. Persistence, on the other hand, allows for carbon flow through the soil environment and its interactions there, as long as it remains in the soil environment. Therefore, when carbon leaves a certain pool within the soil, it is considered lost in the concept of permanence, whereas it simply has flowed using the concept of persistence. In the previous example of carbon stored within a tree, if a tree's limbs were converted to biochar, it would still count towards carbon sequestration by the persistence concept. An important idea supported by persistence is long-term sequestration. Long-term sequestration can take place as soil organic carbon flows into the deeper soil horizons.

Measurement and Verification

Payment programs that incentivize practices for ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration, often rely on the accurate measurement and verification of soil carbon content over time to determine if or how much (monetarily) a user of these practices has earned. Measuring and verifying soil carbon accumulation and storage that has been achieved can be challenging because significant changes in soil organic carbon are difficult to detect before 7 to 10 years (Smith 2004) of improved management practices, and even so, soil carbon content can be widely inconsistent within the same field scale. (Saby et al. 2008) Extensive and repeated sampling necessary to properly determine changes in soil organic carbon content is time-intensive and expensive. As such, cheaper process-based biogeochemical modeling and the use of satellite-based detection technology are available as alternatives, but accurately estimating the amount of carbon sequestered from models is an area of active development. Avoiding the need for measurement and verification of soil carbon increase, some programs simply make payments for implementation of practices proven to increase soil organic matter.

Further Opportunities to Mitigate or Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Agriculture

In addition to carbon sequestration strategies, there are other opportunities for agriculture to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These include using renewable energy (solar, wind) for farm operations and reductions in fertilizer use, which has the benefit of avoided emission from tillage practices as well as the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from their manufacture and transportation. (Martínez-Blanco et al. 2013; USDA Climate Hubs 2025)

¹ Carbon offsetting is the practice of using avoided emissions or enhanced removals to compensate for GHG emissions. In carbon markets, for example, a buyer can secure and retire a carbon credit in lieu of directly reducing their own emissions. For additional information on carbon offsets, see FS1374, Payment for Ecosystem Services and Climate Change.

Additional Resources

1. A Practical Guide To No-Till & Cover Crops in the Mid-Atlantic (PDF) - New Jersey Natural and Working Lands Strategy
2. USGCRP, 2018: Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2): A Sustained Assessment Report. [Cavallaro, N., G. Shrestha, R. Birdsey, M. A. Mayes, R. G. Najjar, S. C. Reed, P. Romero-Lankao, and Z. Zhu (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 878 pp.
3. National Academies Report: Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration

References

1. Blanco-Canqui, H., Claassen, M. M., and Presley, D. R. 2012. Summer Cover Crops Fix Nitrogen, Increase Crop Yield, and Improve Soil-Crop Relationships. Agronomy Journal, 104(1), 137–147.
2. Blanco-Canqui, H., and Ruis, S. J. 2018. No-tillage and soil physical environment. Geoderma, 326, 164–200.
3. Blanco-Canqui, H, and Ruis, SJ. 2020. Cover crop impacts on soil physical properties: A review. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 84: 1527– 1576.
4. Bolan, N. S., Kunhikrishnan, A., Choppala, G. K., Thangarajan, R., and Chung, J. W. 2012. Stabilization of carbon in composts and biochars in relation to carbon sequestration and soil fertility. Science of The Total Environment, 424, 264–270.
5. Brassard, P., Godbout, S., and Raghavan, V. 2016. Soil biochar amendment as a climate change mitigation tool: Key parameters and mechanisms involved. Journal of Environmental Management, 181, 484–497.
6. Celik, I., Ortas, I., and Kilic, S. 2004. Effects of compost, mycorrhiza, manure and fertilizer on some physical properties of a Chromoxerert soil. Soil and Tillage Research, 78(1), 59–67.
7. Conant, R. T., Easter, M., Paustian, K., Swan, A., and Williams, S. 2007. Impacts of periodic tillage on soil C stocks: A synthesis. Soil and Tillage Research, 95(1–2), 1–10.
8. Ding, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, S., Li, Z., Tan, X., Huang, X., Zeng, G., Zhou, L., and Zheng, B. 2016. Biochar to improve soil fertility. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36(2), 36.
9. Dlamini, P., Chivenge, P., and Chaplot, V. 2016. Overgrazing decreases soil organic carbon stocks the most under dry climates and low soil pH: A meta-analysis shows. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 221, 258–269.
10. Duong, T. T. T., Penfold, C., and Marschner, P. 2012. Amending soils of different texture with six compost types: Impact on soil nutrient availability, plant growth and nutrient uptake. Plant and Soil, 354(1–2), 197–209.
11. Finney, D. M., Buyer, J. S., and Kaye, J. P. 2017. Living cover crops have immediate impacts on soil microbial community structure and function. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 72(4), 361–373.
12. Kallenbach, C., and Grandy, A. S. 2011. Controls over soil microbial biomass responses to carbon amendments in agricultural systems: A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 144(1), 241–252.
13. Kaplan, M., Paolini, J., Kelemen, S., Murphy, S., and Robson, M. 2021. Ecosystem Service Valuation Approaches and Carbon Mitigation Considerations for Garden State Agriculture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
14. Ledo, A., Smith, P., Zerihun, A., Whitaker, J., Vicente‐Vicente, J. L., Qin, Z., McNamara, N. P., Zinn, Y. L., Llorente, M., Liebig, M., Kuhnert, M., Dondini, M., Don, A., Diaz‐Pines, E., Datta, A., Bakka, H., Aguilera, E., and Hillier, J. 2020. Changes in soil organic carbon under perennial crops. Global Change Biology, 26(7), 4158–4168.
15. Lehman, R. M., Cambardella, C., Stott, D., Acosta-Martinez, V., Manter, D., Buyer, J., Maul, J., Smith, J., Collins, H., Halvorson, J., Kremer, R., Lundgren, J., Ducey, T., Jin, V., and Karlen, D. 2015. Understanding and Enhancing Soil Biological Health: The Solution for Reversing Soil Degradation. Sustainability, 7(1), 988–1027.
16. Martínez-Blanco, J., Lazcano, C., Christensen, T. H., Muñoz, P., Rieradevall, J., Møller, J., Antón, A., and Boldrin, A. 2013. Compost benefits for agriculture evaluated by life cycle assessment. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 33(4), 721–732.
17. Murray, B. C., Sohngen, B., and Ross, M. T. 2007. Economic consequences of consideration of permanence, leakage and additionality for soil carbon sequestration projects. Climatic Change, 80(1–2), 127–143.
18. Natural Resources Conservation Service. July, 2021. Sustaining Agroforestry Systems for Farms and Ranches. Agroforestry for Farms and Ranches.
19. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2020. New Jersey's Global Warming Response Act 80 x 50 Report: Evaluating Our Progress and Identifying Pathways to Reduce Emissions 80% by 2050 (PDF).
20. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2024. NJ greenhouse gas emissions inventory report years 1990-2021 (PDF).
21. Ogle, S. M., Breidt, F. J., and Paustian, K. 2005. Agricultural management impacts on soil organic carbon storage under moist and dry climatic conditions of temperate and tropical regions. Biogeochemistry, 72(1), 87–121.
22. O'Lear, A, Kaplan M, Lathrop R, Idell, C,Marxen, L, and Zipse P. February 2022. Forest Resource Considerations for A New Jersey Natural and Working Lands Strategy. Prepared for the New Jersey Climate Change Alliance Natural and Working Lands Group (PDF). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
23. Paustian, K., Larson, E., Kent, J., Marx, E., and Swan, A. 2019. Soil C Sequestration as a Biological Negative Emission Strategy. Frontiers in Climate, 1, 8.
24. Ranaivoson, L., Naudin, K., Ripoche, A., Affholder, F., Rabeharisoa, L., and Corbeels, M. 2017. Agro-ecological functions of crop residues under conservation agriculture. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37(4), 26.
25. Ramesh, T., Bolan, N., Kirkham, M. B., Wijesekara, H., Kanchikerimath, M., Rao, C., Sandeep, S., Rinklebe, J., Ok, Y. S., Choudhury, B., Wang, H., Tang, C., Wang, X., Song, Z., and Freeman II, O. 2019. Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics: Impact of Land Use Changes and Management Practices: A Review. Advances in Agronomy, 156, 1–107.
26. Roberts, K. G., Gloy, B. A., Joseph, S., Scott, N. R., and Lehmann, J. 2010. Life Cycle Assessment of Biochar Systems: Estimating the Energetic, Economic, and Climate Change Potential. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(2), 827–833.
27. Saby, N. P. A., Bellamy, P. H., Morvan, X., Arrouays, D., Jones, R. J. A., Verheijen, F. G. A., Kibblewhite, M. G., Verdoodt, A., Üveges, J. B., Freudenschuß, A., and Simota, C. 2008. Will European soil-monitoring networks be able to detect changes in topsoil organic carbon content?: Detection of Changes in Soil OC by Monitoring. Global Change Biology, 14(10), 2432–2442.
28. Sanderman, J., Hengl, T., and Fiske, G. J. 2017. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(36), 9575–9580.
29. Smith, P. 2004. How long before a change in soil organic carbon can be detected?: Time Taken to Measure a Change in Soil Organic Carbon. Global Change Biology, 10(11), 1878–1883.
30. Snapp, S.S., Swinton, S.M., Labarta, R., Mutch, D., Black, J.R., Leep, R., Nyiraneza, J. and O'Neil, K. 2005. Evaluating cover crops for benefits, costs and performance within cropping system niches. Agron. J., 97: 322-332.
31. Steele, M. K., Coale, F. J., and Hill, R. L. 2012. Winter Annual Cover Crop Impacts on No-Till Soil Physical Properties and Organic Matter. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 76(6), 2164–2173.
32. Teague, R. and U. Kreuter. 2020. Managing Grazing to Restore Soil Health, Ecosystem Function, and Ecosystem Services. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4: DOI=10.3389/fsufs.2020.534187.
33. Undersander, D., Albert, B., Cosgrove, D., and Peterson, P. 2002. Pastures for Profit: A Guide to Rotational Grazing (PDF). University of Wisconsin Extension Service No. A3529.
34. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2024. 2022 Census of Agriculture. New Jersey State and County Data. Volume 1. Geographic Area Series. Part 30. AC-22-A-30.
35. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Climate Hubs. 2025. Agrivolatics: Coming Soon to a Farm Near you? Accessed January 2025.
36. Wiesmeier, M., Urbanski, L., Hobley, E., Lang, B., von Lützow, M., Marin-Spiotta, E., van Wesemael, B., Rabot, E., Ließ, M., Garcia-Franco, N., Wollschläger, U., Vogel, H.-J., and Kögel-Knabner, I. 2019. Soil organic carbon storage as a key function of soils—A review of drivers and indicators at various scales. Geoderma, 333, 149–162.
37. Williams, S.M. and Weil, R.R. 2004. Crop cover root channels may alleviate soil compaction effects on soybean crop. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 68: 1403-1409.
38. Wilson, D., Farrell, C. A., Fallon, D., Moser, G., Müller, C., and Renou-Wilson, F. 2016. Multiyear greenhouse gas balances at a rewetted temperate peatland. Global Change Biology, 22(12), 4080–4095.

August 2025