A restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning grassland management, grazing livestock and soil carbon storage.

Approximately a third of all annual greenhouse gas emissions globally are directly or indirectly associated with the food system, and over a half of these are linked to livestock production. In temperate oceanic regions, such as the UK, most meat and dairy is produced in extensive systems based on pasture. There is much interest in the extent to which such grassland may be able to sequester and store more carbon to partially or completely mitigate other greenhouse gas emissions in the system. However, answering this question is difficult due to context-specificity and a complex and sometimes inconsistent evidence base. This paper describes a project that set out to summarize the natural science evidence base relevant to grassland management, grazing livestock and soil carbon storage potential in as policy-neutral terms as possible. It is based on expert appraisal of a systematically assembled evidence base, followed by a wide stakeholders engagement. A series of evidence statements (in the appendix of this paper) are listed and categorized according to the nature of the underlying information, and an annotated bibliography is provided in the electronic supplementary material.

The carbon costs of global wood harvests.

After agriculture, wood harvest is the human activity that has most reduced the storage of carbon in vegetation and soils1,2. Although felled wood releases carbon to the atmosphere in various steps, the fact that growing trees absorb carbon has led to different carbon-accounting approaches for wood use, producing widely varying estimates of carbon costs. Many approaches give the impression of low, zero or even negative greenhouse gas emissions from wood harvests because, in different ways, they offset carbon losses from new harvests with carbon sequestration from growth of broad forest areas3,4. Attributing this sequestration to new harvests is inappropriate because this other forest growth would occur regardless of new harvests and typically results from agricultural abandonment, recovery from previous harvests and climate change itself. Nevertheless some papers count gross emissions annually, which assigns no value to the capacity of newly harvested forests to regrow and approach the carbon stocks of unharvested forests. Here we present results of a new model that uses time discounting to estimate the present and future carbon costs of global wood harvests under different scenarios. We find that forest harvests between 2010 and 2050 will probably have annualized carbon costs of 3.5-4.2 Gt CO2e yr-1, which approach common estimates of annual emissions from land-use change due to agricultural expansion. Our study suggests an underappreciated option to address climate change by reducing these costs.

Extension services can promote pasture restoration: Evidence from Brazil's low carbon agriculture plan.

Innovation and improved practices in the livestock sector represent key opportunities tomeet global climate goals. This paper provides evidence that extension services can pro-mote pasture restoration in cattle ranching in Brazil. We use a randomized controlledtrial implemented in the context of the ABC Cerrado (a large-scale program launched in2014 aimed at fostering technology adoption through a combination of training andtechnical assistance) to examine the effects of different types of extension on agriculturalpractices, input use, and productivity. Providing technical assistance to previously trainedproducers promoted pasture restoration, induced farmers to use inputs more intensively,helped them to improve their management and soil conservation practices, and substan-tially increased revenues. A cost­benefit calculation indicates that US$1 invested in theABC Cerrado program increased profits by US$1.08 to $1.45. Incorporating carbonsavings amplifies this return considerably.

Consequences of underexplored variation in biodiversity indices used for land-use prioritization.

For biodiversity protection to play a persuasive role in land-use planning, conservationists must be able to offer objective systems for ranking which natural areas to protect or convert. Representing biodiversity in spatially explicit indices is challenging because it entails numerous judgments regarding what variables to measure, how to measure them, and how to combine them. Surprisingly few studies have explored this variation. Here, we explore how this variation affects which areas are selected for agricultural conversion by a land-use prioritization model designed to reduce the biodiversity losses associated with agricultural expansion in Zambia. We first explore the similarity between model recommendations generated by three recently published composite indices and a commonly used rarity-weighted species richness metric. We then explore four underlying sources of ecological and methodological variation within these and other approaches, including different terrestrial vertebrate taxonomic groups, different species-richness metrics, different mathematical methods for combining layers, and different spatial resolutions of inputs. The results generated using different biodiversity approaches show very low spatial agreement regarding which areas to convert to agriculture. There is little overlap in areas identified for conversion using previously published indices (mean Jaccard similarity, Jw , between 0.3 and 3.7%), different taxonomic groups (5.0% < mean Jw  < 13.5%), or different measures of species richness (15.6% < mean Jw  < 33.7%). Even with shared conservation goals, different methods for combining layers and different input spatial resolutions still produce meaningful, though smaller, differences among areas selected for conversion (40.9% < mean Jw  < 67.5%). The choice of taxonomic group had the largest effect on conservation priorities, followed by the choice of species richness metric, the choice of combination method, and finally the choice of spatial resolution. These disagreements highlight the challenge of objectively representing biodiversity in land-use planning tools, and present a credibility challenge for conservation scientists seeking to inform policy making. Our results suggest an urgent need for a more consistent and transparent framework for designing the biodiversity indices used in land-use planning, which we propose here.

Air quality, nitrogen use efficiency and food security in China are improved by cost-effective agricultural nitrogen management.

China's gains in food production over the past four decades have been associated with substantial agricultural nitrogen losses, which contribute to air and water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and damage to human health. Here, we explore the potential to improve agricultural production practices that simultaneously increase yields while addressing these environmental challenges. We link agronomic research with air quality modelling for an integrated assessment of four improved nitrogen management strategies: improved farm management practices with nitrogen use reductions; machine deep placement of fertilizer; enhanced-efficiency fertilizer use; and improved manure management. We find that simultaneous implementation of the four strategies provides the largest benefits, which include: reductions in PM2.5 concentrations and associated premature deaths; increases in grain yields and grain nitrogen use efficiency; reductions in NO3- leaching and runoff and greenhouse gas emissions. Total benefits of US$30 billion per year exceed the US$18 billion per year in costs. Our findings indicate that policies that improve farmers' agricultural nitrogen management in China will improve both food security and public health while addressing multiple environmental challenges. Similar increases in attention on agricultural policy around the world are likely to provide large benefits in food security, environmental integrity and public health.

Publisher Correction: Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change.

In this Letter, the PANGAEA repository was referred to incorrectly in the 'Code availability' and 'Data availability' sections of Methods: the link should be https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.893761 instead of https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.877266 . In addition, the sentence, "However, the more commonly used system 2 (75 kg ha-1 yr-1) generates roughly the same benefits as system 1…" should read, "However, the more commonly used system 2 (75 kg ha-1 yr-1) generates roughly the same benefits as sugarcane ethanol…" These errors have been corrected in the online versions of the Letter.

Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change.

Land-use changes are critical for climate policy because native vegetation and soils store abundant carbon and their losses from agricultural expansion, together with emissions from agricultural production, contribute about 20 to 25 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions1,2. Most climate strategies require maintaining or increasing land-based carbon3 while meeting food demands, which are expected to grow by more than 50 per cent by 20501,2,4. A finite global land area implies that fulfilling these strategies requires increasing global land-use efficiency of both storing carbon and producing food. Yet measuring the efficiency of land-use changes from the perspective of greenhouse gas emissions is challenging, particularly when land outputs change, for example, from one food to another or from food to carbon storage in forests. Intuitively, if a hectare of land produces maize well and forest poorly, maize should be the more efficient use of land, and vice versa. However, quantifying this difference and the yields at which the balance changes requires a common metric that factors in different outputs, emissions from different agricultural inputs (such as fertilizer) and the different productive potentials of land due to physical factors such as rainfall or soils. Here we propose a carbon benefits index that measures how changes in the output types, output quantities and production processes of a hectare of land contribute to the global capacity to store carbon and to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions. This index does not evaluate biodiversity or other ecosystem values, which must be analysed separately. We apply the index to a range of land-use and consumption choices relevant to climate policy, such as reforesting pastures, biofuel production and diet changes. We find that these choices can have much greater implications for the climate than previously understood because standard methods for evaluating the effects of land use4-11 on greenhouse gas emissions systematically underestimate the opportunity of land to store carbon if it is not used for agriculture.

Europe's renewable energy directive poised to harm global forests.

This comment raises concerns regarding the way in which a new European directive, aimed at reaching higher renewable energy targets, treats wood harvested directly for bioenergy use as a carbon-free fuel. The result could consume quantities of wood equal to all Europe's wood harvests, greatly increase carbon in the air for decades, and set a dangerous global example.

Estimation of methane emissions from local and crossbreed beef cattle in Daklak province of Vietnam.

OBJECTIVE: This study was aimed at evaluating effects of cattle breed resources and alternative mixed-feeding practices on meat productivity and emission intensities from household farming systems (HFS) in Daklak Province, Vietnam. METHODS: Records from Local Yellow×Red Sindhi (Bos indicus; Lai Sind) and 1/2 Limousin, 1/2 Drought Master, and 1/2 Red Angus cattle during the growth (0 to 21 months) and fattening (22 to 25 months) periods were used to better understand variations on meat productivity and enteric methane emissions. Parameters were determined by the ruminant model. Four scenarios were developed: (HFS1) grazing from birth to slaughter on native grasses for approximately 10 h plus 1.5 kg dry matter/d (0.8% live weight [LW]) of a mixture of guinea grass (19%), cassava (43%) powder, cotton (23%) seed, and rice (15%) straw; (HFS2) growth period fed with elephant grass (1% of LW) plus supplementation (1.5% of LW) of rice bran (36%), maize (33%), and cassava (31%) meals; and HFS3 and HFS4 computed elephant grass, but concentrate supplementation reaching 2% and 1% of LW, respectively. RESULTS: Results show that compared to HFS1, emissions (72.3±0.96 kg CH4/animal/life; least squares means± standard error of the mean) were 15%, 6%, and 23% lower (p<0.01) for the HFS2, HFS3, and HFS4, respectively. The predicted methane efficiencies (CO2eq) per kg of LW at slaughter (4.3±0.15), carcass weight (8.8±0.25 kg) and kg of edible protein (44.1±1.29) were also lower (p<0.05) in the HFS4. In particular, irrespective of the HSF, feed supply and ratio changes had a more positive impact on emission intensities when crossbred 1/2 Red Angus cattle were fed than in their crossbred counterparts. CONCLUSION: Modest improvements on feeding practices and integrated modelling frameworks may offer potential trade-offs to respond to climate change in Vietnam.

Managing nitrogen for sustainable development.

Improvements in nitrogen use efficiency in crop production are critical for addressing the triple challenges of food security, environmental degradation and climate change. Such improvements are conditional not only on technological innovation, but also on socio-economic factors that are at present poorly understood. Here we examine historical patterns of agricultural nitrogen-use efficiency and find a broad range of national approaches to agricultural development and related pollution. We analyse examples of nitrogen use and propose targets, by geographic region and crop type, to meet the 2050 global food demand projected by the Food and Agriculture Organization while also meeting the Sustainable Development Goals pertaining to agriculture recently adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. Furthermore, we discuss socio-economic policies and technological innovations that may help achieve them.

Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th century.

Global increases in population, consumption, and gross domestic product raise concerns about the sustainability of the current and future use of natural resources. The human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) provides a useful measure of human intervention into the biosphere. The productive capacity of land is appropriated by harvesting or burning biomass and by converting natural ecosystems to managed lands with lower productivity. This work analyzes trends in HANPP from 1910 to 2005 and finds that although human population has grown fourfold and economic output 17-fold, global HANPP has only doubled. Despite this increase in efficiency, HANPP has still risen from 6.9 Gt of carbon per y in 1910 to 14.8 GtC/y in 2005, i.e., from 13% to 25% of the net primary production of potential vegetation. Biomass harvested per capita and year has slightly declined despite growth in consumption because of a decline in reliance on bioenergy and higher conversion efficiencies of primary biomass to products. The rise in efficiency is overwhelmingly due to increased crop yields, albeit frequently associated with substantial ecological costs, such as fossil energy inputs, soil degradation, and biodiversity loss. If humans can maintain the past trend lines in efficiency gains, we estimate that HANPP might only grow to 27-29% by 2050, but providing large amounts of bioenergy could increase global HANPP to 44%. This result calls for caution in refocusing the energy economy on land-based resources and for strategies that foster the continuation of increases in land-use efficiency without excessively increasing ecological costs of intensification.