Soil carbon (C) sequestration in agricultural working lands via soil amendments and management practices is considered a relatively well-tested and affordable approach for removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Carbon farming provides useful benefits for soil health, biomass production, and crop resilience, but the effects of different soil C sequestration approaches on the nitrogen (N) cycle remain controversial. While some C farming practices have been shown to reduce N fertilizer use in some cases, C farming could also impose an unwanted \"N penalty\" through which soil C gains can only be maintained with additional N inputs, thereby increasing N losses to the environment. We systematically reviewed meta-analysis studies on the impacts of C farming on N cycling in agroecosystems and estimated the cumulative effect of several C farming practices on N cycling. We found that, on average, combined C farming practices significantly reduced nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate leaching from soils, thus inferring both N cycling and climate change benefits. In addition to more widely studied C farming practices that generate organic C, we also discuss silicate rock additions, which offer a pathway to inorganic C sequestration that does not require additional N inputs, framing important questions for future research.

Cover crops play an increasingly important role in improving soil quality, reducing agricultural inputs and improving environmental sustainability. The main objectives of this critical global review and systematic analysis were to assess cover crop practices in the context of their impacts on nitrogen leaching, net greenhouse gas balances (NGHGB) and crop productivity. Only studies that investigated the impacts of cover crops and measured one or a combination of nitrogen leaching, soil organic carbon (SOC), nitrous oxide (N2 O), grain yield and nitrogen in grain of primary crop, and had a control treatment were included in the analysis. Long-term studies were uncommon, with most data coming from studies lasting 2-3 years. The literature search resulted in 106 studies carried out at 372 sites and covering different countries, climatic zones and management. Our analysis demonstrates that cover crops significantly (p < 0.001) decreased N leaching and significantly (p < 0.001) increased SOC sequestration without having significant (p > 0.05) effects on direct N2 O emissions. Cover crops could mitigate the NGHGB by 2.06 ± 2.10 Mg CO2 -eq ha-1  year-1 . One of the potential disadvantages of cover crops identified was the reduction in grain yield of the primary crop by ≈4%, compared to the control treatment. This drawback could be avoided by selecting mixed cover crops with a range of legumes and non-legumes, which increased the yield by ≈13%. These advantages of cover crops justify their widespread adoption. However, management practices in relation to cover crops will need to be adapted to specific soil, management and regional climatic conditions.

As part of a UK government funded research project to update the UK N2O inventory methodology, a systematic review of published nitrous oxide (N2O) emission factors was carried out of non-UK research, for future comparison and synthesis with the UK measurement based evidence base. The aim of the study is to assess how the UK IPCC default emission factor for N2O emissions derived from synthetic or organic fertiliser inputs (EF1) compares to international values reported in published literature. The availability of data for comparing and/or refining the UK IPCC default value and the possibility of analysing sufficient auxiliary data to propose a Tier 2 EF1 reporting strategy is evaluated. The review demonstrated a lack of consistency in reporting error bounds for fertiliser-derived EFs and N2O flux data with 8% and 44% of publications reporting EF and N2O flux error bounds respectively. There was also poor description of environmental (climate and soil) and experimental design auxiliary data. This is likely to be due to differences in study objectives, however potential improvements to soil parameter reporting are proposed. The review demonstrates that emission factors for agricultural-derived N2O emissions ranged -0.34% to 37% showing high variation compared to the UK Tier 1 IPCC EF1 default values of 1.25% (IPCC 1996) and 1% (IPPC 2006). However, the majority (83%) of EFs reported for UK-relevant soils fell within the UK IPCC EF1 uncertainty range of 0.03% to 3%. Residual maximum likelihood (REML) analysis of the data collated in the review showed that the type and rate of fertiliser N applied and soil type were significant factors influencing EFs reported. Country of emission, the length of the measurement period, the number of splits, the crop type, pH and SOC did not have a significant impact on N2O emissions. A subset of publications where sufficient data was reported for meta-analysis to be conducted was identified. Meta-analysis of effect sizes of 41 treatments demonstrated that the application of fertiliser has a significant effect on N2O emissions in comparison to control plots and that emission factors were significantly different to zero. However no significant relationships between the quantity of fertiliser applied and the effect size of the amount of N2O emitted from fertilised plots compared to control plots were found. Annual addition of fertiliser of 35 to 557 kg N/ha gave a mean increase in emissions of 2.02 ± 0.28 g N2O/ha/day compared to control treatments (p<0.01). Emission factors were significantly different from zero, with a mean emission factor estimated directly from the meta analysis of 0.17 ± 0.02%. This is lower than the IPCC 2006 Tier 1 EF1 value of 1% but falling within the uncertainty bound for the IPCC 2006 Tier 1 EF1 (0.03% to 3%). As only a small number of papers were viable for meta analysis to be conducted due to lack of reporting of the key controlling factors, the estimates of EF in this paper cannot include the true variability under conditions similar to the UK. Review-derived EFs of 0.34% to 37% and mean EF from meta-analysis of 0.17 ± 0.02% highlight variability in reporting EFs depending on the method applied and sample size. A protocol of systematic reporting of N2O emissions and key auxiliary parameters in publications across disciplines is proposed. If adopted this would strengthen the community to inform IPCC Tier 2 reporting development and reduce the uncertainty surrounding reported UK N2O emissions.