R E V I EW AR T I C L E Trade-offs and synergies of soil carbon sequestration: Addressing knowledge gaps related to soil management strategies Peter Maenhout1 | Claudia Di Bene2 | Maria Luz Cayuela3 | Eugenio Diaz-Pines4 | Anton Govednik5 | Frida Keuper6 | Sara Mavsar5 | Rok Mihelic5 | Adam O'Toole7 | Ana Schwarzmann5 | Marjetka Suhadolc5 | Alina Syp8 | Elena Valkama9 1Plant Sciences Unit, Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Merelbeke, Belgium 2Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Center for Agriculture and Environment (CREA), Rome, Italy 3Department of Soil and Water Conservation and Waste Management, CEBAS-CSIC, Campus Universitario de Espinardo, Murcia, Spain 4Institute of Soil Research, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Vienna, Austria 5Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 6BioEcoAgro Joint Research Unit, INRAE, Barenton-Bugny, France 7Department of Biogeochemistry and Soil Quality, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Ås, Norway 8Department of Bioeconomy and Systems Analysis, Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation – State Research Institute (IUNG-PIB), Puławy, Poland 9Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Bioeconomy and Environment, Sustainability Science and Indicators, Turku, Finland Correspondence Peter Maenhout, Plant Sciences Unit, Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Merelbeke, Belgium. Email: peter.maenhout@ilvo.vlaanderen.be Funding information European Unions’ Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, Grant/Award Number: 862695EJPSOIL; Austrian Climate and Energy Fund, Grant/Award Number: ACRP11—CASAS— KR18AC0K14633 Abstract Soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration in agricultural soils is an important tool for climate change mitigation within the EU soil strategy for 2030 and can be achieved via the adoption of soil management strategies (SMS). These strat- egies may induce synergistic effects by simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and/or nitrogen (N) leaching. In contrast, other SMS may stimulate emissions of GHG such as nitrous oxide (N2O) or methane (CH4), offsetting the climate change mitigation gained via SOC sequestration. Despite the importance of understanding trade-offs and synergies for selecting sustain- able SMS for European agriculture, knowledge on these effects remains lim- ited. This review synthesizes existing knowledge, identifies knowledge gaps and provides research recommendations on trade-offs and synergies between SOC sequestration or SOC accrual, non-CO2 GHG emissions and N leaching related to selected SMS. We investigated 87 peer-reviewed articles that address SMS and categorized them under tillage management, cropping systems, water management and fertilization and organic matter (OM) inputs. SMS, such as Received: 30 October 2023 Revised: 6 May 2024 Accepted: 13 May 2024 DOI: 10.1111/ejss.13515 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Soil Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Society of Soil Science. Eur J Soil Sci. 2024;75:e13515. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ejss 1 of 21 https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13515 conservation tillage, adapted crop rotations, adapted water management, OM inputs by cover crops (CC), organic amendments (OA) and biochar, contribute to increase SOC stocks and reduce N leaching. Adoption of leguminous CC or specific cropping systems and adapted water management tend to create trade- offs by stimulating N2O emissions, while specific cropping systems or applica- tion of biochar can mitigate N2O emissions. The effect of crop residues on N2O emissions depends strongly on their C/N ratio. Organic agriculture and agro- forestry clearly mitigate CH4 emissions but the impact of other SMS requires additional study. More experimental research is needed to study the impact of both the pedoclimatic conditions and the long-term dynamics of trade-offs and synergies. Researchers should simultaneously assess the impact of (multiple) agricultural SMS on SOC stocks, GHG emissions and N leaching. This review provides guidance to policymakers as well as a framework to design field experiments and model simulations, which can address knowledge gaps and non-intentional effects of applying agricultural SMS meant to increase SOC sequestration. KEYWORD S CH4, climate change mitigation, conservation agriculture, cropping systems, EJP SOIL, N2O, nitrogen leaching, organic matter inputs, tillage, water management 1 | INTRODUCTION In recent decades, soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration has been suggested as a sustainable and cost-effective strat- egy for climate change mitigation on agricultural lands (Wijesekara et al., 2021). SOC sequestration refers to the removal of carbon (C) from the atmosphere and storage in the soil through plants or other organisms on the medium- and long term (≥15 years) and results in a global soil C stock increase (Don et al., 2024; Goh, 2011). It has been estimated that the global biophysical potential of SOC sequestration through the adoption of recom- mended C management practices (RCMPs) ranges between 0.14 and 0.56 gigatons (Gt) of carbon annually (Peralta et al., 2022). Recent emphasis on promoting SOC storage has resulted in the ‘4 per mille’ (4p1000) international ini- tiative launched by France during the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP) 21. Increasing global agri- cultural SOC stocks at an annual rate of 4‰ could result in a C sequestration potential of 2–3 petagrams (Pg) C/year (Minasny et al., 2017). This implies that even very small increases per unit area in the SOC pool can have important implications for the global C balance and climate change as these increases may offset a significant fraction of CO2 emissions worldwide (Guenet et al., 2021). SOC content represents a crucial soil quality indicator as it directly affects soil functions and ecosystem services. SOC stocks reflect the long-term balance between C inputs (i.e., rhizodeposition, crop residues and exogenous organic products) and C losses through mineralization and leaching. Loss of SOC represents one of the most important soil threats as addressed in the Soil Thematic Strategy (European Commission, 2006). Globally, SOC in agricultural soils is undergoing substantial change due to environmental conditions (e.g., temperature and precipita- tion patterns), land use/cover changes (LULUCF), and man- agement effects (Hu et al., 2018; Tiefenbacher et al., 2021). The intensity and type of agricultural soil manage- ment strategies (SMS) influence the SOC stocks of Highlights • This review outlines knowledge (gaps) on car- bon sequestration trade-offs related to soil management. • Specific cover crops, cropping systems and water management tend to stimulate N2O emissions. • Research should consider all trade-off compo- nents simultaneously in long-term experiments. • Interaction effects of soil management on trade-offs should be assessed in long-term experiments. 2 of 21 MAENHOUT ET AL. 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License agricultural soils (Rumpel et al., 2020). Appropriate soil management may result in improved soil functioning and more productive crops. SMS may also play a role in climate mitigation: they may contribute to a reduction of agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by limiting soil C losses (e.g., C mineralization and CO2 emissions), or increase C inputs, for example, through retention of crop residues in the field, application of external organic matter (OM) inputs into the soils (manure, organic amendments [OA] or biosolids), or a combination of these two factors (Paustian et al., 2016). In addition, con- servation agriculture, organic agriculture and agrofor- estry can favour positive changes in SOC stocks. Applying external OA to agricultural soils can help to improve the soil organic matter (SOM) content and can aid nutrient recycling (e.g., nutrients from straw that would otherwise be burned, compost, manure, etc.; Pezzolla et al., 2012). Similarly, agricultural management practices that contribute to minimal soil disturbance and erosion (e.g., conservation tillage, the use of cover crops [CC]) can maximize the amount of crop residues retained on the soil surface as well as increase the soil water stor- age and the nutrient use efficiencies of cropping systems (Jarecki & Lal, 2003). Because the carbon cycle is tightly coupled with the nitrogen (N) cycle, efforts to increase SOC stocks may directly affect the N cycle and associated direct and indirect nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions (Tiefenbacher et al., 2021) as well as N leaching. Particularly the application of OA can also affect non-CO2 GHG emissions (such as N2O) or N leaching (Diacono & Montemurro, 2011; Guenet et al., 2021). Agricultural SMS may also strengthen climate change mitigation when synergistic effects are stimulated, such as a net SOC sequestration or SOC accrual coupled with a reduction in N2O emissions or N leaching. However, increased N2O emissions can potentially offset the climate change mitigation gained via SOC storage, creating a trade- off. Guenet et al. (2021) found that when associated N2O emissions are not taken into account, climate change miti- gation by increased SOC stocks can be strongly overesti- mated. Indeed, soil N2O emissions are identified as one of the most uncertain components of the global warming potential of agricultural systems (Lugato et al., 2018). N2O emissions are largely derived from microbial turnover of N inputs to agricultural land, i.e., chemical fertilizers, manure, urine deposited by grazing animals, and residues of leguminous crops. N inputs may also stimulate nitrate (NO3 ) leaching. This is an abiotic pro- cess where NO3  is transported out of the root zone along with the downward water flow (Hansen et al., 2019), which usually occurs during periods of high drainage rates. While N leaching is especially known to result in groundwater contamination (Tiefenbacher et al., 2021), the process is also a source of indirect N2O emissions (IPCC, 2006) that contribute to global warming. The leach- ing rate is highly influenced by soil water content, texture and soil structure. It is thus important to evaluate how the supply of C and N inputs addresses NO3  leaching as well as the direct and indirect N2O emissions. Methane (CH4) is another non-CO2 GHG that must be considered when studying the climate mitigation potential of SMS with a focus on carbon sequestration. Generally, agricultural soils are a sink for methane rather than a source. Consumption rates of atmospheric CH4 in soils are low in European agricultural soils (Guenet et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2016) but they contribute to the GHG balance of agroecosystems. So far, results are incon- clusive, showing that specific SMS aiming to increase SOC levels may either increase or decrease CH4 emis- sions from agricultural soils (Sykes et al., 2020). Although the potential trade-offs of carbon sequestra- tion may offset the obtained climate change mitigation, the understanding of the impact of SMS on these trade- offs or synergies remains limited. Diacono and Monte- murro (2011) state that the effects of the application of OM inputs on soil quality and fertility should not be restricted to a simple quantification of SOC stock or CO2 balance, but they must consider all GHG fluxes by trying to include all possible emission sources and sinks within the soil–plant system. Today only scattered information on this subject is available, characterized by a strong heterogeneity of experimental designs performed under different pedocli- matic conditions. The aim of this review is therefore not only to synthesize existing knowledge but also to identify knowledge gaps about both trade-offs and synergies between soil carbon sequestration or SOC accrual (Don et al., 2024), non-CO2 GHG emissions and N leaching under selected agricultural SMS. After these knowledge gaps have been identified, dedicated experiments can be set up to elucidate the impact of SMS on observed trade- offs. In this paper, the investigated agricultural SMS are grouped into four categories: (i) tillage management, (ii) cropping systems, (iii) water management and (iv) fertilization and OM inputs, with the latter compris- ing crop residues, cover crops, livestock manure, slurry, compost, biochar and liming. The aim is to help identify the combinations of agricultural SMS that have yet to be investigated and to recommend future research on possi- ble trade-offs and synergies. 2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS This narrative review focused on relevant European agricultural SMS grouped into four categories as stated MAENHOUT ET AL. 3 of 21 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License in the introduction (above). Relevant literature pub- lished since 2010 was collected from Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Studies were selected according to the following guidelines: reviews and meta-analyses describing the effect of the selected agri- cultural SMS on the trade-offs and synergies between carbon sequestration or SOC accrual (Don et al., 2024) and GHG emissions or N leaching; literature that describes the effects on GHG emissions or N leaching or carbon sequestration (or SOC accrual) either indi- vidually or as a combination of topics; and original research papers that described either trade-offs or syn- ergies on between carbon sequestration (or SOC accrual), GHG emissions or N leaching. When only a limited number of reviews, meta-analyses and original papers could be identified, we also included original research papers on the effects of an SMS on carbon sequestration (or SOC accrual), GHG emissions or N leaching. This criterion only applied to the SMS ‘liming’. The effects of SMS application in both conventional and organic farming systems were considered in this nar- rative review. Despite the noted effects of SMS on crop yield, this direct effect fell largely outside the scope of this paper. A variety of land cover types were included: arable land, permanent crops (woody crops), pasture/grassland, permanent fallow ground and heterogeneous agricultural areas (e.g., annual crops associated with permanent crops). Agroforestry was considered as part of the ‘crop- ping systems’ SMS category. The number of European studies was often limited, thus global reviews and meta- analyses were also included on the condition that they included at least one European study on the same sub- ject. The focus remained on the European agricultural SMS; any global studies were included in order to con- firm or add nuance to the results of the European studies. All collected literature items were grouped according to the abovementioned SMS categories. In total, 87 unique literature items were included: 29 reviews, 42 meta- analyses and 16 original papers. From these 87 items, information for this qualitative review was expressed using vocabulary based on the FAO, WRB/USDA, Agro- voc and Corine Land Cover standards and was reported in a qualitative database available on Zenodo (https:// doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10959077). Some of the retained literature items describe the effects of several SMS catego- ries, thus the qualitative database comprises 112 unique inputs. A majority of literature considered fertilization and OM input (58 input lines, 51.8%), followed by tillage management (23 input lines, 20.5%) and cropping sys- tems (20 input lines, 17.9%); only 11 studies reported on water management (9.8%). Information extracted from the literature items includes (1) information on the effect of an SMS on a trade-off component (SOC sequestration or SOC accrual, N2O emissions, CH4 emission, N leach- ing) or the trade-offs and (2) knowledge gaps and research recommendations (Table S1). First, for each relevant literature item (Table S1, List S1), a qualitative expert evaluation was performed to assess the effect of the reported SMS category on SOC change, GHG emission mitigation or N leaching (Tables S2–S9). This expert evaluation was based on the evidence and conclusions described in the litera- ture item. See ‘Results and Discussion’ section below for a qualitative evaluation and summary of the overall effect of each SMS category from the environmental point of view. The effect of a given soil management practice is defined as positive when it results in increased SOC change while it denotes decreased N2O and CH4 emissions and N leaching; negative when the opposite; and neutral when no effect on SOC change, GHG emissions or N leaching are observed. Some liter- ature items reported SMS effects from different pedo- climatic conditions or crops, meaning that one literature item can generate more than one output describing the effect of a particular SMS category on the chosen parameter. Second, all evaluations of the literature items were grouped per SMS category. For the evaluation of the effect of an SMS category on SOC change, GHG emission mitigation or N leaching, all of the included considered literature items (sorted per SMS; Table S1) were attributed equal weight. Reviews and meta-analyses include information on multiple studies, but the original studies included in our review were attributed equal weight as these focus on European regions. In case the expert evaluation of a single literature item (Tables S2–S9) concluded that both positive and/or negative or neutral effects occur, for example, effects that depend on the C/N ratio of OM inputs, these effects were proportionally accounted for in the contribution of this single literature item. Thus, if n effects were concluded for one literature item (Tables S2–S9), the weight of one effect of this literature item was equal to the weight of the lit- erature item divided by n. Detailed information on the literature items included for each SMS can be found in Table S1 and List S1. Moreover, we also identified knowledge gaps and research recommendations from the relevant literature items (see Table S1) grouped per SMS category and sub- categories in the database. The most relevant knowledge gaps and research recommendations are described in ‘Results and Discussion’ section. 4 of 21 MAENHOUT ET AL. 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 3 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 | Tillage management Intensive tillage with complete soil inversion (inversion tillage) has been shown to (1) increase soil vulnerability to erosion and compaction and (2) reduce SOC. Further, inversion tillage requires more labour and higher con- sumption of fossil fuels due to the intensive use of machinery in comparison to other less intensive types of tillage (Sørensen & Nielsen, 2005). To mitigate some of these negative effects and to preserve SOC, less intensive tillage practices (also referred to as reduced, minimum or conservation tillage) and no-till (the absence of mechani- cal soil disturbance) have been promoted in recent decades. Reduced tillage intensity generally increases top- soil SOC content, but the effect on the total (whole soil profile) SOC storage is being questioned due to insuffi- cient sampling of the complete soil profile and/or lack of accompanying data for carbon stock calculations (Guenet et al., 2021; Haddaway et al., 2017; Meurer et al., 2018; Tiefenbacher et al., 2021). Under reduced tillage, most studies reported incr- eased SOC stocks in the upper 30 cm of the soil profile (Figure 1a; Aguilera, Lassaletta, Gattinger, & Gimeno, 2013; Autret et al., 2019; Dignac et al., 2017; Guenet et al., 2021; Haddaway et al., 2017; Meurer et al., 2018; Payen et al., 2021; Powlson et al., 2016; Tiefenbacher et al., 2021). Careful investigation is needed to account for actual SOC accrual and not just vertical redistribution. FIGURE 1 The percentage of literature items that report positive (green colour), negative (red colour) and neutral (grey colour) effects of soil management strategies on soil organic carbon (SOC) change (a), N2O emission mitigation (b), CH4 emission mitigation (c) and N leaching reduction (d). The shaded area indicates the percentage of literature items in which the effect was not assessed. These effects were evaluated for tillage management (n = 23); cropping systems (n = 18); water management (n = 10); crop residues (n = 8); cover crops (n = 14); livestock manure, slurry and compost (n = 12); biochar (n = 6) and liming (n = 9). In case a single literature item reported both positive and/or negative or neutral effects, these effects were assigned a proportional weight in the contribution of this single literature item. Detailed information on the literature items included for each soil management strategy can be found in Table S1 and List S1. The results of the qualitative expert evaluations executed on the effect of the reported SMS category on SOC change, GHG emission mitigation or N leaching reduction are shown in Tables S2–S9. MAENHOUT ET AL. 5 of 21 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License The few studies that included deeper sampling depths (down to 60 cm: 45 cm in Jacobs et al. (2015); 50 cm in Krauss et al. (2017); 40 cm in Murugan et al. (2014) and 60 cm in Zikeli et al. (2013)) report conflicting results. The effect throughout the entire soil profile needs further examination (Haddaway et al., 2017). Further, the ‘equiva- lent soil mass’ approach is not commonly used, which fur- ther hinders comparison in case the soil bulk density is significantly altered due to management. For more reliable estimates of SOC accrual or carbon sequestration, addi- tional research is needed to investigate the underlying mechanisms of SOC stabilization and turnover within the soil profile on a longer temporal scale. Less intensive tillage resulted in either constant or increased N2O emissions as compared to conventional tillage practices (Figure 1b; Guenet et al., 2021; Krauss et al., 2017; Mangalassery et al., 2014; Tellez-Rio, García- Marco, Navas, Lopez-Solanilla, Rees, et al., 2015; Tellez- Rio, García-Marco, Navas, Lopez-Solanilla, Tenorio, & Vallejo, 2015). Because N2O emissions are a product of a microbially guided process, this effect is influenced by several soil properties that can be altered by (inversion) tillage, such as SOC and nutrient contents, water holding capacity, porosity, soil structure and soil air–water condi- tions. Heterotrophic denitrification, the main source of soil-borne N2O emissions, is influenced by available soil carbon and anoxic conditions. Under reduced tillage, both parameters usually increase due to SOC accumula- tion. In practice, the impact of tillage management on N2O emissions may vary among different soil manage- ment systems (e.g., fertilization, crop rotation, etc.). This has sparked an ongoing debate about how different till- age systems influence N2O emissions. Soils with improved water-holding capacity, porosity and hydrophi- licity tend to have better nitrogen and water retention (Guenet et al., 2021). In the short term, no-till can lead to higher soil density; the resulting lower porosity and higher water content thus creates favourable conditions for denitrification. Under reduced tillage or no-till, reductions in CO2 have been observed (Abdalla et al., 2016; Aguilera, Lassa- letta, Gattinger, & Gimeno, 2013; Huang et al., 2018). Most authors report no significant effect of tillage on CH4 emissions (Figure 1c; Krauss et al., 2017; Sanaullah et al., 2020; Tellez-Rio, García-Marco, Navas, Lopez-Sola- nilla, Rees, et al., 2015; Tellez-Rio, García-Marco, Navas, Lopez-Solanilla, Tenorio, & Vallejo, 2015) while others note a decrease (Huang et al., 2018). In general, the degree of evidence in literature is too low to draw conclusions about the effect of tillage man- agement on GHG fluxes. Most studies confirm a complex interplay between tillage and soil bio-chemical–physical properties, pedoclimatic conditions and other agricultural management practices (crop rotation, CC, fertilization, irrigation, etc.) that impede the ability to draw general conclusions. Further, the duration of the experiment plays a role (Six et al., 2004) as the processes involved have different temporal dynamics. Future studies are needed with different (longer) experimental duration under different cropping conditions that consider both SOC accrual or SOC sequestration and GHG emissions to get more insight into potential trade-offs. Another prob- lem is the lack of consistency in reporting the soil depth considered. Last, too few experiments have been per- formed that test the impact of different combinations of tillage and fertilization as applied in real agricultural practice. Few studies have simultaneously estimated N leach- ing and SOC stocks and/or GHG emissions under differ- ent tillage systems. The results of Daryanto et al. (2017) suggest that changes in water flux between tillage sys- tems affect N leaching, with a potentially higher loss of N to groundwater in the no-till system (Figure 1d). Only one study from the present literature analysis simulta- neously estimated SOC stock changes, GHG emissions and NO3  leaching under different tillage practices at field level (Autret et al., 2019). When reduced tillage was applied, the authors observed a reduction in the potential to mitigate climate change, owing to high N2O emissions that partially offset the high carbon sequestration rate. No effect on nitrate leaching was observed in that study. Recently, Taghizadeh-Toosi et al. (2022) simultaneously studied the effect of no-tillage, CC and straw retention on N2O emissions and N leaching. They found that no- tillage reduced N2O emissions by 46% compared to ploughing, while the effect of no-tillage on N leaching reduction was non-significant. The three SMS resulted in a positive effect on N retention and the GHG balance. 3.2 | Cropping systems Diversification of crops and well-designed cropping sys- tems are important strategies to improve soil properties and promote soil fertility such as nutrient cycling and biological activity. Cropping systems that strive for agro-environmental protection and socio-economic sus- tainability can be considered as a well-developed form of sustainable farming. Cropping systems and SOC dynamics are strictly linked. Cropping systems based on crop rotation with legumes (Guenet et al., 2021), perennials (Morugan- Coronado et al., 2020) and agroforestry (Kim et al., 2016), combined with conservation or organic agriculture (Autret et al., 2019; Tiefenbacher et al., 2021) induce a positive SOC stock change (Figure 1a). Likewise, crop 6 of 21 MAENHOUT ET AL. 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License diversification, permanent crops and CC can enhance SOC storage. Further, recycling of crop biomass (e.g., catch crops, agroforestry or deep rooting crops) can prevent C losses from soils (Tiefenbacher et al., 2021). Nevertheless, Sandén et al. (2018) found that in crop rota- tions mainly based on cereals such as maize, wheat or barley, where grain legumes (e.g., faba bean, pea), forage legumes (e.g., lucerne, clover, vetch), grass, root and tuber crops (e.g., potato, sugar beet) are less frequently present, SOC content remained unchanged in the long term. Interestingly, Gattinger et al. (2012) found that SOC increases under organic agriculture are mainly due to differences observed in crop rotations and total C inputs (i.e., the sum of external C inputs and crop resi- dues). This is because organic cropping systems are more often mixed systems (e.g., livestock and arable crops) that are characterized by diversified rotations with higher per- centage of legumes (grain or forage) in the crop rotation. However, Leifeld and Fuhrer (2010) concluded that the higher SOC stock change under organic agriculture com- pared to conventional agriculture was mainly due to the higher application of organic fertilizer in organic systems. Although agroforestry systems may play a crucial role in increasing SOC stock and reducing net GHG emissions (Debaeke et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2016), the climate change mitigation potential of these systems is not con- clusive due to insufficient evidence. A complete under- standing of above- and below-ground biomass C storage in trees and/or shrubs is required based on long-term data. A better understanding of the C translocation and its contribution to C inputs and retention in soils is needed. Recently, minor differences in N2O emissions in agro- forestry systems compared to adjacent non-agroforestry farmland were found (Figure 1b; Guenet et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2016). However, no clear trend of change could be identified. Enhanced N2O emissions can be due to the greater N supply through N2-fixing trees, the introduction of leguminous CC, land use change from forestry or grassland to cropland or the incorporation of crop resi- dues (Doltra et al., 2019; Guenet et al., 2021; Kim & Kirschbaum, 2015). In temperate regions where agrofor- estry systems are generally planted with non-leguminous trees, N2O emissions are often reduced due to the pres- ence of deep-rooted trees. These trees can reduce the amount of N available for nitrification and denitrification because they require more water than croplands, resulting in decreased soil moisture content (Guenet et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2016). Permanent cropping systems (e.g., willow short rotation crop, grass, miscanthus) in con- servation and organic agriculture have been shown to reduce N2O emissions (Figure 1b) compared to annual cropping systems (e.g., winter-oat, fodder maize and annual bioenergy crops; Oertel et al., 2016). Intercropping and crop rotation seem to have mainly beneficial effects on GHG emission mitigation. During the growth of unfertilized legumes (grain legumes, grass–clover leys, green manure or CC), low N2O emissions were observed, particularly when grown in mixtures with non-legumes, because low soil mineral N concentration is associated with legume–rhizobium symbioses (Figure 1b; Hansen et al., 2019). The impact of cropping systems on N2O emission mitigation thus depends on the specific cropping system. CH4 emissions were also reduced when using crop rotations and an organic agri- cultural system (Figure 1c; Oertel et al., 2016). Nitrate leaching was usually reduced when CC and especially legumes were introduced into the crop rotation (Figure 1d; Debaeke et al., 2017; Guenet et al., 2021), although the number of studies available is low. Perma- nent cropping reduces soil NO3  leaching compared to arable crops (Don et al., 2012; Novak & Fiorelli, 2010). Similarly, NO3  leaching was reduced in organic agricul- tural systems (Autret et al., 2019). However, the study of De Notaris et al. (2018) demonstrates that the selection of the crop rotation can strongly impact the risk of N leaching and result in higher N leaching losses in organic compared to conventional agricultural systems. 3.3 | Water management Irrigation and water management practices are important to ensure an adequate water supply for crops under cli- mate change scenarios that include the lack of reliable rainfall (Trost et al., 2013). Irrigation increases plant- available water in soils and helps to increase net primary production and C inputs into the soil under dry environ- mental conditions. Irrigation itself might thus affect cli- mate change by altering the capacity of soils to act as a C sink or source, as well as affecting GHG emissions (Lal, 2004). Irrigation can increase CO2 emissions due to a stimu- lation of the soil microbial activity (Sapkota et al., 2020) but this effect is usually outweighed by SOC inputs via plant growth (Emde et al., 2021), resulting in net SOC accumulation (Figure 1a). This was mainly observed in arid and semi-arid regions (Emde et al., 2021; Trost et al., 2013). At the global level, no SOC stock increase was observed in flood- or furrow-irrigated soils (Emde et al., 2021). When combined with N fertilization, irriga- tion stimulates SOC accumulation, especially in sandy soils and soils low in SOC content (Trost et al., 2013; Trost et al., 2016). Furthermore, reduced tillage strengthens the SOC accumulation obtained via irrigation (Trost et al., 2013). MAENHOUT ET AL. 7 of 21 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License To fully understand the effects of irrigation on SOC stock, the impact of pedoclimatic conditions and initial SOC stocks needs to be assessed. Researchers should take the SOC storage in deeper soil layers into account to more accurately estimate the effects of irrigation on SOC. Insights into fundamental mechanisms are required. The impact of irrigation on changes in soil texture and trans- location of clay particles needs to be assessed to achieve an in-depth understanding of the impact on SOC accu- mulation. Moreover, future research should also focus on the impact of water table changes on SOC stocks. Last, the formation of secondary carbonates, which may lead to inorganic C accrual, has been seldom investigated and thus requires attention. Irrigation can stimulate both direct and indirect N2O emissions (Aguilera, Lassaletta, Sanz-Cobena, et al., 2013; Cayuela et al., 2017), with reported increases ranging from 50% to 140% (Trost et al., 2013) depending on the availabil- ity of reactive N (Kuang et al., 2021; Trost et al., 2013), soil type (Kuang et al., 2021; Trost et al., 2016) and cropping systems (Figure 1b). However, as irrigation can enhance agronomic yields it can result in lower yield-scaled N2O emissions (Trost et al., 2016). Water-saving irrigation tech- niques seem to have a positive impact on mitigation of N2O emissions. Drip irrigation was found to cause less N2O emissions than sprinkler (Cayuela et al., 2017; Kuang et al., 2021) or other conventional (furrow) irrigation tech- niques (Aguilera, Lassaletta, Sanz-Cobena, et al., 2013; Kuang et al., 2021). Deficit irrigation applied via drip irri- gation was also found to decrease N2O emissions (Zornoza et al., 2018). CH4 emission may be stimulated by flood irri- gation as this creates anaerobic conditions in soil, while reduced irrigation (volume or frequency) may favour a reduction of CH4 emissions or even a CH4 uptake (Figure 1c; Sapkota et al., 2020). The effects of irrigation practices on CH4 emissions require more attention, espe- cially in upland soil systems. Inappropriate irrigation practices can stimulate nitrate leaching (Figure 1d; Quemada et al., 2013; Tiefenbacher et al., 2021) and reduce nitrogen use effi- ciency (Quemada et al., 2013). In general, irrigation has a negative impact on N leaching when compared to rainfed systems. In contrast, optimal management practices can considerably reduce nitrate leaching. Adapting the amount of water to the crop's needs may reduce nitrate leaching by 80% (Quemada et al., 2013), especially in fur- row and flood irrigation systems. Deficit irrigation helps to reduce nitrate leaching but has a negative impact on yield (Quemada et al., 2013). Improved irrigation man- agement may reduce nitrate leaching while increasing yields. In future research, nitrate leaching should be monitored within long-term field trials. To properly assess the sustainability of irrigation strategies, water-saving irrigation strategies (i.e., deficit irrigation, subsoil irrigation) should be investigated, including non-irrigated and full irrigation controls. Inter- action effects of water management with fertilization (organic and synthetic) and the diversity of crops (includ- ing woody perennials) in both conventional and organic farming systems require more research. Furthermore, the impact of soil type (including acid soil types) and climate requires more attention. In general, an important limita- tion in current research is the lack of long-term experi- ments. Field studies that investigate the effect of irrigation on both SOC accrual and GHG emissions are scarce (Trost et al., 2016; Zornoza et al., 2018). Such stud- ies are highly relevant and could provide better insights into the trade-offs between GHG emission/N leaching and SOC accrual or C sequestration. Furthermore, the information on how water quality may affect SOC stocks and N2O fluxes in the long term is still limited. Zhang et al. (2016) found that increased salinity of irrigation water increased N2O emissions. At the same time, long- term irrigation with saline water has been found to decrease soil organic and inorganic C storage (Dong et al., 2022). In related findings, constructed water bodies used for irrigation may also act as a source of indirect N2O emissions (Cayuela et al., 2017; Webb et al., 2021) but this effect is currently underinvestigated (Webb et al., 2021). 3.4 | Fertilization and OM inputs 3.4.1 | Cover crops Cover crops are sown in order to cover soil with vegeta- tion before sowing a subsequent crop, in order to reduce the risk of soil loss through erosion. Furthermore, CC increase the amount of crop residues incorporated into the soil upon termination of the CC. Mediterranean (Aguilera, Lassaletta, Gattinger, & Gimeno, 2013; Shackelford et al., 2019) and global meta- analyses (Jian et al., 2020) show that both non-legume and legume CCs resulted in increased SOC stocks in the topsoil compared to leaving the soil bare between crops or fallow in winter (Figure 1a). The soil carbon stock had significant and positive correlations with the annual temperature and the duration of CC cultivation (Jian et al., 2020). CC species composition may influence the change in SOC stock, with mixtures and legumes usually showing higher SOC accrual rates than mono-species or grasses (Jian et al., 2020). How- ever, a recent review on Mediterranean viticulture showed larger increases in SOC under the growth of spontaneous 8 of 21 MAENHOUT ET AL. 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License grass species compared to the use of legumes (Abad et al., 2021). An analysis of European long-term experiments showed that N2O emissions increased by 65% due to CCs and green manures, but the response was insignificant after random effects were taken into account (Sandén et al., 2018). Typically, legumes result in higher N2O emissions, while non-legume and mixed CC have either a neutral effect or lower N2O emissions (Figure 1b; Abdalla et al., 2019; Basche et al., 2014; Muhammad et al., 2019), probably because of the legumes' ability to fix atmo- spheric N and increase soil N levels. One of the key points to controlling the CC effect on N2O emissions is the frequency of integration of legume crops in the crop rotation (Guenet et al., 2021), along with the C/N ratio of CC residues and their rate of decomposition and whether the residues are ploughed under or left to decay on the soil surface (Guenet et al., 2021). Incorporation of CC may actually stimulate N2O emissions, in contrast to leaving them on the soil surface (Basche et al., 2014; Muhammad et al., 2019), through a variety of mecha- nisms, such as increasing N mineralization rates of both SOM and CC residues, increasing soil temperature and the ensuing potential for denitrification (Basche et al., 2014). The use of legume CC can indirectly impact N2O emissions originating from mineral fertilizer appli- cation if biologically fixated N is taken into account in fertilization schemes. Knowledge gaps should be addressed regarding the following: the influence of CC residue quality and quantity on CO2 and N2O emissions (Muhammad et al., 2019), the impact of weather condi- tions on N2O dynamics (Basche et al., 2014) and specific climate conditions such as dry cool and dry warm zones with annual precipitation ≤500 mm (Abdalla et al., 2019; Quemada et al., 2013). Measurements of N2O emissions over the entire year are required to determine the net effect of CC on N2O (Basche et al., 2014). Existing moni- toring measurement systems and available datasets do not allow for robust estimations of N2O emissions and conclusions on the possible trade-off between N2O emis- sions and management practices that stimulate C seques- tration or SOC accrual (Lugato et al., 2018). Several European studies show that replacing a fallow field with a non-legume CC reduced N leaching by about 50% via N uptake and less nitrate provision to the soil in autumn (Valkama et al., 2015), while the use of legumes had no effect (Quemada et al., 2013; Shackelford et al., 2019; Thapa et al., 2018). A European review on organic arable crop rotations (Hansen et al., 2019) stressed that continued use of CC, even with mixtures of legumes and non-legumes, had the proven ability to reduce NO3-N leaching and had a better impact on soil fertility than using non-legumes as CC (Figure 1d). However, more research is needed on N2O emissions and NO3-N leaching within organic arable crop rotations (Hansen et al., 2019) as well as accounting for spatial var- iability of nitrate fluxes (Thapa et al., 2018). Furthermore, there is no meta-analysis that summarizes studies on the effects of CC on SOC, N2O emissions and N leaching across Europe. 3.4.2 | Crop residues Incorporation of crop residues has been shown to result in 3%–18% higher SOC stocks compared to crop residue removal in a synthesis of meta-analyses (Bolinder et al., 2020) and about 6%–7% in a European meta- analysis and long-term experiment (Figure 1a; Lehtinen et al., 2014; Sandén et al., 2018). SOC content increased significantly with an increasing straw addition rate and straw C input rate (Xia et al., 2018). The impact on SOC stocks is expected to be greater for grain maize because the potential aboveground crop residues represent approxi- mately twice the amount of small grain cereals (Bolinder et al., 2020). The impact is greater with a C/N ratio of resi- dues larger than 30 (e.g., cereal straw), compared to C/N ratio <30 (e.g., legume straw; Xia et al., 2018). The effect of straw application on SOC content was similar for differ- ent mineral N fertilization rates and application methods (surface application vs. incorporated), but a long-term (≥4 year) straw addition resulted in significantly higher relative SOC increase (27.7%) than a short-term addition (13.4%; Xia et al., 2018). Furthermore, the increase in nutrient availability following straw addition was also associated with an increase in microbial biomass (Siedt et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2018; Xia et al., 2018). Temporal dynamics of SOC changes following straw addition are still unclear due to the different durations of the experiments (Bolinder et al., 2020). Xia et al. (2018) concluded that experiments with an intermediate dura- tion (>4 years) resulted in a significantly higher C increase than short-term experiments, while other authors (Lehtinen et al., 2014) stressed that long-term experiments (>20 years) yielded larger SOC increases than short-term experiments. Meta-analyses also showed a lack of agreement for relationships between the changes in SOC due to residue incorporation and soil tex- ture or climate (Bolinder et al., 2020). Straw C/N ratio was the main factor determining the variability of the N2O emission response after residue addition, as indicated by two global meta-analyses (Chen et al., 2013; Xia et al., 2018). Crop residue amendment stimulated soil N2O emissions when C/N ratios were <45, with the effect attenuated for C/N ratios of 45–100, and induced a reduction of N2O fluxes for C/N ratios MAENHOUT ET AL. 9 of 21 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License >100 (Figure 1b; Chen et al., 2013). Different thresholds of C/N ratio may be set for evaluation of their impact on N2O emissions. Xia et al. (2018) observed enhanced N2O emissions when applying straw with a C/N ratio <30 (e.g., legume straws), no effect for C/N ratio between 30 and 60 (e.g., cereal straws) and N2O flux reductions for C/N ratio >60 (Figure 1b). As suggested by Olesen et al. (2023), both meta-analyses agreed that wheat straw reduced N2O emissions, while maize, bean and particu- larly green manure and vegetables increased N2O emis- sions. Studies that did not take straw C/N ratios into account reported an increase in soil N2O emissions follow- ing the incorporation of residues (Lehtinen et al., 2014; Sandén et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018). Incorporation of residue into the soil through tillage increases aeration and microbial activity by exposing more residue surface to microorganisms, thereby stimulating residue mineraliza- tion and N2O emissions (Alluvione et al., 2010; Baggs et al., 2000); see ‘Tillage’ section above. This stimulated microbial activity is favoured by a high content of easily degradable carbon in crop residues and may result in lower oxygen concentrations, which in turn may stimulate denitrification (Olesen et al., 2023). More long-term field studies are needed to better assess the N2O emissions fol- lowing crop residue incorporation, specifically from the same studies in which SOC is measured (Lehtinen et al., 2014). Global meta-analyses showed that crop residue return (incorporation and mulching) resulted in a decrease in N leaching by about 9% in upland soils (Wang et al., 2018; Xia et al., 2018). The meta-analysis by Xia et al. (2018) stressed that the response of N leaching depended on N fertilization rates, C/N ratio of crop straw, straw applica- tion method and climate. No European synthesis on the topic of NO3  leaching and straw application was found. 3.4.3 | Livestock manure, slurry and compost The application of farmyard manure, slurry and compost (OA) was examined in relation to SOC change, GHG emissions and N leaching. Farmyard manure consists of faeces, urine and bedding (usually cereal straw or saw- dust). Slurry (also called liquid manure) contains urine and faeces without the inclusion of bedding and is some- times diluted with water. Both farmyard and liquid manure may contain fodder residues. Compost is aerobi- cally treated biogenic waste, such as source-separated municipal waste, farmyard manure or green waste (grass, shrub and yard clippings). Literature widely agrees that the application of these OA results in increased SOC con- tent compared to inorganic fertilizers or no fertilization (Figure 1a; Maillard & Angers, 2014; Morugan-Coronado et al., 2020; Shakoor et al., 2021). The majority of the studies focus on SOC contents and not SOC stocks, how- ever. The question remains what the SOC saturation level would be after OA application under different pedocli- matic conditions (Zhou et al., 2017). Increases in SOC content in the range of 20%–35% have been found after manure application (Gross & Glaser, 2021; Sandén et al., 2018). Relative SOC increase tends to be higher with compost amendment than with raw manure due to the presence of more stable forms of carbon, which are not easily mineralized and released back to the atmo- sphere (Aguilera, Lassaletta, Gattinger, & Gimeno, 2013; Luo et al., 2018; Sandén et al., 2018; Siedt et al., 2021). However, composts vary in feedstock and degree of decomposition, which results in variable SOC change potentials (Siedt et al., 2021). The average C sequestration potential of compost was estimated to be 714 ± 404 kg C ha1 year1 compared to 292 ± 132 kg C ha1 year1 for farmyard manure (Tiefenbacher et al., 2021). Liquid materials (e.g., slurry, digestate) can be mineralized rap- idly and have the lowest impact on SOC compared to other organic materials (Aguilera, Lassaletta, Gattinger, & Gimeno, 2013). Nevertheless, the impact of slurry on SOC stock has not been thoroughly studied (Maillard & Angers, 2014). In addition, a limited number of studies adequately address the effects of OA to estimate impacts on SOC stock changes. This is due to a lack of essential informa- tion on C concentration, application rate, dry matter con- tent and animal species (Maillard & Angers, 2014; Shakoor et al., 2021; Tiefenbacher et al., 2021). Better parameterization of organic fertilizers is needed to improve existing dynamic biogeochemical SOC models used to study the interactions between the C and N cycles. These models could be used to re-evaluate the impacts of organic fertilizers on SOC pools (Zhou et al., 2017). All types of manure (liquid and solid; raw but also composted or digested) increase soil N2O emissions by an average of 33% compared to mineral N fertilizer alone (Figure 1b; Zhou et al., 2017). However, data on N2O emissions associated with the addition of OA are limited (Guenet et al., 2021) and only a few articles compared the application of manure from different animal species (Maillard & Angers, 2014). In particular, subsurface application of manure (recommended to reduce NH3 vol- atilization) increased N2O emissions by an average of 75% compared (Zhou et al., 2017) to mineral N fertilizers. This is in contrast with the findings of Velthof et al. (2003). Surface application of pretreated manure (e.g., compost) resulted in similar N2O fluxes to mineral N fertilization, whereas raw manure significantly 10 of 21 MAENHOUT ET AL. 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License increased (46.9%) emissions compared with mineral N fertilizer (Figure 1b; Zhou et al., 2017). This difference was attributed to the contrasting contents of easily degradable C and N compounds (Zhou et al., 2017). The nitrogen replacement value of OA tends to increase with the level of the total nitrogen applied via OA (Hijbeek et al., 2018). This indicates a high immedi- ate nitrogen availability and a high mineralization rate and thus a significant risk of GHG emissions and NO3 - leaching if there is no simultaneous, consistent use of mineral N in the soil by plants. Recently, Valkama et al. (2024) found that for OM inputs such as livestock manure and slurry, a slight N2O emission reduction can be obtained when no mineral fertilizer was applied. Com- bined application with mineral fertilizer seemed to stimu- late N2O emissions. Organic fertilizers have a slow but effective nitrogen release (Lehtinen et al., 2017), and the nitrogen balance should therefore be considered to avoid NO3 - leaching and stimulation of GHG emissions (Sandén et al., 2018). On the other hand, a more stable compost with an annual N mineralization rate of 3%–8% from the second year after application, that is, the amount that can replace mineral fertilizer N, does not pose a risk for increased N2O emissions (Diacono & Montemurro, 2011). Siedt et al. (2021) indicated that because of the lower availability of N forms in compost, nitrate leaching to groundwater after compost application may be lower than mineral fertilizer application. The results of a recent meta-analysis show the use of compost was found to reduce N2O emissions by 25%. This effect depends on the pedoclimatic conditions, however (Valkama et al., 2024). Zhu et al. (2023) suggested that the soil N2O emissions are controlled by the ratios of dissolved organic C, easily oxidizable C, particulate organic C and light fraction of organic C-to-total N. Furthermore, higher particulate organic C and hydrolysable ammonium-N increase soil N2O emissions (Zhu et al., 2023). Compost with an average C/N ratio of approximately 15 and a dis- solved organic C/NO3 ratio of approximately 1000 charac- terizes the nitrification–denitrification activities in soils and is thus one way to reduce N2O emissions. C/NO3 ratios between 84 and 130 showed that after NO3 - is largely consumed, N2O is reduced to N2. A dissolved organic C(H2O)/NO3 ratio that balances towards an excess of electron donors under anaerobic denitrification condi- tions forces denitrifying bacteria, archaea and fungi to use the electron acceptors NO3 , NO2 , NO and N2O spar- ingly by reducing them predominantly to N2 (Benckiser et al., 2015). Mitigation strategies to minimize GHG and especially N2O emissions while still achieving high crop yields should therefore be based on tailored nutrient man- agement approaches that account for the nature of the organic carbon and nitrogen forms in the organic fertilizers/soil amendment used and keep the N balance within safe limits. More research is required to elucidate the effects of livestock manure, slurry and compost on N2O emission mitigation. Pretreatment of manure could offer potential for reducing N2O emissions in agricultural systems. Future research should focus on investigating the effect of duration and methods of composting or other pretreatments for the N2O fluxes (Graham et al., 2017). Furthermore, different OM inputs with similar C/N ratios should be compared with constant total N rates, as C/N ratios lower than 20 tended to reduce emissions (Graham et al., 2017). More research on the effects of livestock manure, slurry and com- post on N leaching is required (Figure 1d). 3.4.4 | Biochar Biochar is the solid product remaining after biomass undergoes pyrolysis under low-oxygen conditions. It is intended for use in soil or other environmental applica- tions (Lehmann & Joseph, 2015). Biochar has received immense research attention in the last 10 years to investi- gate its potential efficacy for climate change mitigation (Smith, 2016; Woolf et al., 2010), soil and water pollution remediation (Ahmad et al., 2014) and improving agro- nomic soils (Jeffery et al., 2016). Biochar is a promising organic C amendment, charac- terized by different fractions of C (easily mineralizable and more recalcitrant C; Borchard et al., 2019). Its unique feature in the context of climate mitigation is that biochar is more resistant to microbial decomposition compared to the biomass feedstock it was made from and thus persists longer in the soil as a carbon store (Lehmann et al., 2015). Conversion of biomass to biochar and its deposition in soil can sequester 50% of the biomass-C (Figure 1a). The soil C sequestration potential of biochar is widely acknowl- edged in literature, but more research is still required. More certainty is needed to document biochar's net climate change mitigation effect, using studies that also account for indirect emissions occurring in the pro- duction of biochar and its associated value chain (Tisserant & Cherubini, 2019). Literature summarized in recent meta-analyses shows that biochar addition to soils leads to a 10%–50% reduc- tion in N2O emissions (Figure 1b; Borchard et al., 2019; Cayuela et al., 2014; Verhoeven et al., 2017). Mechanisms explaining this effect include abiotic reduction of N2O on organo-mineral biochar surfaces (Quin et al., 2015); microbial reduction of N2O to N2 mediated by a pH increase (Weldon et al., 2019); and abiotic/biotic syner- gies where N2O is held in biochar pores (Cornelissen et al., 2013), which gives denitrifiers more time to reduce MAENHOUT ET AL. 11 of 21 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License N2O to N2 (Harter et al., 2016). Even though the mitiga- tion effect is often reported, more mechanistic studies are needed to unravel the effects of feedstock, pyrolysis pro- cess conditions and the optimal physio-chemical proper- ties of biochar to mitigate N2O (Cayuela et al., 2014). Furthermore, there is a lack of knowledge about the duration of the mitigation effect as well as which bio- chars mitigate N2O in different soils and climatic condi- tions. Borchard et al. (2019) found a reduction in the N2O mitigation strength from biochar addition in studies that were conducted >120 days. Further, short-term incuba- tions had a larger mitigation (54%; Cayuela et al., 2014) than field studies (approximately 10%; Verhoeven et al., 2017). Higher dose rates (2–10% w/w) used in incu- bation experiments compared with field trials dose rates (usually <2%) explain much of the difference in the N2O mitigation effect, with N2O decreasing by half when bio- char dose was doubled (Cayuela et al., 2014). The hetero- geneous spread of biochar particles in field soil (as compared to in controlled incubations) can also explain some of the differences (Kammann et al., 2017). More studies that evaluate the long-term effect of biochar addition should be performed, including tests to deter- mine whether N2O mitigation effects endure over time and how biochar interacts with soil minerals and OM in the long term. The long-term effect on native SOC levels and N cycling requires a more in-depth understanding as well, for example, to seek agreement on the effect of bio- char on nitrification rates or nitrification-mediated N2O emissions (Verhoeven et al., 2017; Wells & Baggs, 2014). The body of knowledge of biochar-induced effects on soil N2O emissions in grassland and perennial crops is also incomplete. Several meta-analyses (Cong et al., 2018; Jeffery et al., 2016; Ji et al., 2018) dealt with the effect of biochar on CH4 emissions and uptake in soil. In Jeffery et al. (2016), biochar was found to significantly increase CH4 sink strength (Figure 1c), and a decrease in source strength was noted in acidic soil but an increase was noted in soils with neutral pH range (i.e., pH 6–8). The same study found that biochar was also more likely to reduce CH4 emissions in studies where N application was <120 kg ha1, which is related to the well-known inhibi- tion effect of N fertilization on methanotrophic bacteria population (Chen et al., 2021). Emission reductions were also observed when biochar was made at temperatures >600C, which creates biochar with a greater surface area and minimal labile carbon. However, Cong et al. (2018), who assessed studies conducted up to 2016 and applied a stricter criterion to the influence of multiple treatments within studies, found no effect of biochar on CH4 emissions or uptake in upland soils (Figure 1c). In contrast, the meta-analysis of Ji et al. (2018) found a 84% reduction in CH4 uptake in upland soils. Given the pre- dominance of upland soils in Europe, the potential reduc- tion in CH4 uptake due to biochar requires more research (Ji et al., 2018). Furthermore, more knowledge is needed on the interactions of soil properties when assessing the biochar impacts on CH4, for example, dif- ferent moisture conditions and tillage practices combined with biochar application (Cong et al., 2018). According to Jeffery et al. (2016), more knowledge is needed to discern under which environmental conditions biochar decreases CH4 uptake. Van Zwieten et al. (2015) outlined the need for more research on how CH4 uptake in soils may be affected via biochar-mediated changes in soil gas diffusiv- ity. They also recommended more research on how aged biochar interacts with NH4 + adsorption and how this affects methanotrophic bacterial communities. Biochar can both increase and decrease NO3  leach- ing in soil depending on the type of biochar, its particle size, soil type and how long biochar has been in the soil (Laird & Rogovska, 2015). Borchard et al. (2019) did a global meta-analysis with 88 lab and field studies and found a 26% to 32% reduction in NO3 across studies with experiments that lasted >30 days (Figure 1d), but a 20% increase in NO3 leaching was noted for experi- ments <30 days. This may imply that soil structure dis- turbance due to biochar addition may be a relevant factor when assessing the influence of biochar on NO3  leach- ing. In general, biochar is known to help retain NO3  in coarse soils due to greater water retention but the reverse effect was observed in clay soils where it may increase hydraulic conductivity (Laird & Rogovska, 2015). Given the variability in biochar impact on NO3  leaching, research is needed to develop a functional classification system that can be used to predict NO3  leaching effects based on soil type, biochar type and climate interactions (Laird & Rogovska, 2015). 3.4.5 | Liming The aim of applying calcium- and magnesium-rich mate- rials (liming) is to reduce soil acidity in order to improve plant nutrient uptake. Liming with lime (Eze et al., 2018) and dolomite (Shaaban et al., 2019) can stimulate SOC stocks (Figure 1a), which seems to be mediated by increased crop biomass productivity. Some studies found a neutral effect (Figure 1a) on SOC by adding lime (Paradelo et al., 2015), sugar beet lime with red gypsum (Vazquez et al., 2020) and dolomite (Abalos et al., 2020). However, liming could be an effective strategy to mitigate climate change (Fornara et al., 2011). A 129-year exp- eriment showed that net C increase measured in the 0–23 cm layer in limed soils was 2–20 times higher than 12 of 21 MAENHOUT ET AL. 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License in non-limed soils. The greater biological activity in limed soils resulted in plant C inputs being more effectively pro- cessed and incorporated into resistant soil organo-mineral pools, despite increasing soil respiration rates (Goulding, 2016). Neutralization of pH likely favours microbial activ- ity, therefore increasing CO2 effluxes (Abalos et al., 2020; Lochon et al., 2018) but the overall effect of liming on SOC is usually either positive or neutral (Figure 1a). In some cases, even reductions in CO2 emissions with lime amendment have been observed (Egan et al., 2018). Silicate weathering consumes CO2 and therefore has the potential to mitigate CO2 emissions (Dietzen et al., 2018). By applying finely ground silicate minerals to soils, silicate weathering increases the rate of SOC accrual. The weathering of olivine by carbonic acid, which con- sumes twice as much CO2 as the dissolution of lime, results in a stronger positive SOC change (Dietzen et al., 2018). However, the weathering effect of strong acids must also be considered when evaluating the SOC accrual potential of silicate minerals, especially when soil pH is below 5 (Dietzen et al., 2018) and acid neutralization occurs in the soil (Goulding, 2016; Paradelo et al., 2015). The specific effects of liming on the soil C input due to enhanced plant performance and C outputs due to stimulated microbial activity, along with the role of silicate weathering to remove atmospheric CO2, still need further investigation. The addition of different liming amendments usually led to a reduction of N2O emissions (Figure 1b) (Abalos et al., 2020; Khaliq et al., 2019; Shaaban et al., 2019; Vazquez et al., 2020; Zaman & Nguyen, 2010), which is linked to the stimulation of N2O reduction to N2. It is also associated with stimulated plant growth and thus plant N uptake, which also reduces nitrate leaching (Bergholm et al., 2015). Vazquez et al. (2020) demonstrated that sugar beet lime application and red gypsum could reduce the cumulative N2O emissions by more than 70% and 65% after the soil was rewetted to 50% and 100% of field capacity, respectively. Application of dolomite (CaMg (CO3)2) significantly reduced N2O emissions by 40%–50% (Khaliq et al., 2019) or even 82% (Abalos et al., 2020). Lime (CaCO3) amendment reduced N2O emissions by 37%–44% (Khaliq et al., 2019). In contrast, Zaman and Nguyen (2010) found no effect of lime on N2O emissions, but did note a N2O emission reduction after application of zeolite. The soil N2O emission reduction potential of different liming materials needs further evaluation (Shaaban et al., 2019; Zaman & Nguyen, 2010). More studies are needed that investigate the effects of liming on N leaching (Figure 1d). The latter was studied by Bergholm et al. (2015) over 4 years (1992–1995) in a newly clear-cut field. N leaching at 50 cm depth was dominated by NO3–N; it peaked during the second year in the lime-amended treatment and during the third year in the control treatment. Cumulative N leaching for the 4-year period was lower for a treatment with lime (31 kg N ha-1) than for the control (53 kg N ha-1) and was inversely correlated with plant N uptake. 4 | FUTURE PERSPECTIVES 4.1 | The impact of pedoclimatic conditions The literature review on the four agricultural SMS cate- gories identified a lack of information about the impact of pedoclimatic conditions on the trade-offs and synergies (Guenet et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2018; Lochon et al., 2018) on a global and especially European level (Hansen et al., 2019; Lugato et al., 2018; Poeplau & Don, 2015). Currently, the lack of sufficiently robust field data hinders accurate estimations and conclusions on the possible trade-offs among SOC sequestration, GHG emissions and NO3 - leaching. It is crucial to obtain datasets in the differ- ent European agro-environmental zones (Gross & Glaser, 2021; Guenet et al., 2021; Maillard & Angers, 2014; Payen et al., 2021) as pedoclimatic conditions strongly influence the soil C and N dynamics (Eze et al., 2018). In the literature reviewed here, climate change is usu- ally not considered, although it is known that this will have an important impact on SOC stock change, GHG emissions and NO3 - leaching. To better assess the effects in terms of potential trade-offs, literature suggests investi- gating the impacts of climatic factors on N2O and NO3  leaching (Wang et al., 2018), especially in dry cool temper- ate (Xia et al., 2018) and dry warm climatic zones (Abdalla et al., 2019; Basche et al., 2014; Quemada et al., 2013). In general, GHG emissions and SOC accrual and thus also SOC sequestration are affected by soil type, local climate and weather conditions. Therefore, additional field experi- ments with different agricultural practices in different geo- graphic locations across the climatic gradient will yield data to account for the above factors. Likewise, the global meta-analysis of Eze et al. (2018) highlighted that more site-specific field experiments focusing on the interactive effects of climate change and agricultural soil management practices are required. Study of the impact of projected changes in climatic conditions (i.e., warmer temperatures, periods of drought, wetter conditions) is also recommended. 4.2 | Subsoil is overlooked The effects of soil management practices on the subsoil represent a knowledge gap, as only few studies MAENHOUT ET AL. 13 of 21 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License investigated the subsoil below the level of tillage (Aguilera, Lassaletta, Gattinger, & Gimeno, 2013; Emde et al., 2021; Poeplau & Don, 2015). The effects of tillage strategies on SOC stocks in the deeper soil layers are largely unknown. This results in a misrepresentation of the effects of tillage systems, water management and CC (types and termination strategies) on SOC stock, as only shallow layers are considered (Poeplau & Don, 2015). Moreover, the lack of a full estimation of organic C inputs and the lack of examination of the coarse frac- tion are important sources of errors in SOC stock estimation. This is reported to be a crucial knowledge gap (Aguilera, Lassaletta, Gattinger, & Gimeno, 2013; Muhammad et al., 2019; Payen et al., 2021). 4.3 | Combined and synergetic effects of agricultural SMS In the context of the impact of pedoclimatic conditions, many studies point out that a better understanding of the interaction effects of agricultural SMS and soil properties (e.g., pH, texture, nutrient status or other physico-chemical properties) is crucial and should be better investigated (Chen et al., 2013; Guenet et al., 2021; Shakoor et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2018), as interaction effects can considerably influence SOC stocks, GHG emissions and N leaching. Furthermore, many of the reviewed studies describe that a major cause of current knowledge gaps is the lack of research that assesses the combined and synergetic interaction effects of agricultural SMS (e.g., tillage man- agement, cropping systems, irrigation management and fertilization and OM inputs) on SOC storage, GHG emis- sions and nitrogen leaching (Abdalla et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2013; Guenet et al., 2021; Shackelford et al., 2019; Shakoor et al., 2021; Valkama et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2018). Better insights will enhance the efficacy of global efforts aimed at offsetting GHG emissions and N leaching via SOC sequestration (Chen et al., 2013; Quemada et al., 2013). Many of the current studies focus on the effect of a single management practice as a stand- alone practice; this is far from representative as all agri- cultural systems apply a combination of management practices. These oversimplified analyses may reflect the difficulty of studying interactive effects, as such studies require a complex experimental design over large experi- mental areas coupled with intensive monitoring of GHG emissions. Automated GHG emission monitoring systems are costly while non-automated measurements are labour intensive and have a limited temporal resolution. Either way, this type of research carries a high price tag. A com- plex statistical model is also required to disentangle main and interaction effects. Too little is currently known about how the management measures adopted in systems such as organic agriculture contribute to C inputs and C reten- tion in soils. Research is needed on the amount of crop residue that can be removed, as this is dependent on soil types, climate conditions and management systems (Blanco-Canqui & Lal, 2008). There is a general lack of understanding of the impact of SMS and a concurrent potential for optimization. Experiments should therefore focus on the optimization of SMS to help farmers apply them in an efficient and effective way. McDaniel et al. (2014) suggested that data from long-term field experi- ments with different crop management and cropping sys- tems may provide valuable insights on C inputs and SOC changes. Similarly, further investigations on combined effects of tillage, fertilizer and OM input on SOC are required to determine under what conditions manure application can increase soil C storage and crop produc- tivity without increasing N2O emissions (Guenet et al., 2021; Haddaway et al., 2017; Kuang et al., 2021). However, essential insights from long-term experiments studying both SOC concentrations and GHG emissions are lacking. Xia et al. (2018) stressed the importance of investigating the fraction of N lost as N2O or NO3 - leach- ing in different soils that receive either mineral nitrogen or straw with different C/N ratios to better understand the interaction between C and N cycles. Furthermore, experiments should also consider constraints associated with phosphorus, potassium and other nutrients that influence the effects of OM on SOC accrual, C sequestra- tion, GHG emissions or nutrient losses (Dignac et al., 2017; Guenet et al., 2021). 4.4 | Long-term experiments are needed Lugato et al. (2018) state that existing monitoring mea- surement systems and available datasets do not allow for robust estimations of N2O emissions and conclusions about the possible trade-off between N2O emissions and management practices meant to stimulate SOC accrual and C sequestration. Furthermore, quantitative data on gaseous N losses (NO, N2O and N2) are scarce (Bergholm et al., 2015), and the effects of long-term manipulations of soil properties on N2O emissions need to be studied under field conditions (Khaliq et al., 2019). To address these knowledge gaps, long-term field experiments that combine different agricultural SMS are needed: they should consider both carbon sequestration and N losses via N2O emissions and leaching as well as monitor the relationships between biological soil quality indicators and GHG emissions (Sandén et al., 2018). Many aspects related to the establishment of experiments such as the 14 of 21 MAENHOUT ET AL. 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License selection of a more appropriate experimental duration, site selection, type of measurements, experimental scale (field/pot/laboratory incubation) and data availability can strongly contribute to the improvement of the insights on trade-offs and synergies (Haddaway et al., 2017). The impact of SMS on crop yield is a funda- mental service of agricultural land. This was largely out- side the scope of this paper, but it is important to consider as primary production may be a driver of SOC stock dynamics as well. Knowledge about crop yield is also essential to get better insights in yield-scaled N2O emissions, which may be a better way to assess the impact of SMS on environmental efficiency (Yao et al., 2024). The duration of experiments and monitoring is gener- ally short (usually less than 12 months) or medium term as revealed by an analysis of literature focused on tillage management (Dignac et al., 2017), cropping systems (Autret et al., 2019), irrigation management (Aguilera, Lassaletta, Sanz-Cobena, et al., 2013; Cayuela et al., 2017) and fertilization and OM input (Lehtinen et al., 2014). This can result in irregular conclusions for the effect of time and management on SOC changes (Bolinder et al., 2020) and GHG emissions, which in turn can con- tribute to the underestimation of N2O emission factors (EF). For instance, Emde et al. (2021) reported that infor- mation regarding monitoring of irrigation management over the long term (>15 years) is remarkably limited. Monitoring of long-term experimental sites (Morugan- Coronado et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2017; Zornoza et al., 2018) is required to better assess the effects of till- age systems (Payen et al., 2021), crop diversification (Autret et al., 2019), irrigation methods (Emde et al., 2021) and OA (Gross & Glaser, 2021) on SOC stock change and GHG emissions (Hénault et al., 2012; Lehtinen et al., 2014). Moreover, for modelling purposes, measurements of N2O emissions and N loss by NO3 - leaching should be conducted for at least a full year (Basche et al., 2014; Quemada et al., 2013) to allow more reliable modelling and prediction of the effects of agricul- tural SMS on the trade-offs and synergies between SOC stock changes and these parameters (Dignac et al., 2017). 5 | CONCLUSION This review shows that an increase in SOC stock change and a reduction in N leaching are positively affected by conservation tillage, crop rotation, permanent cropping, more efficient water management and the use of fertiliza- tion and OM inputs (e.g., cover crops, organic amend- ments, biochar). The effects on the N2O and CH4 emission mitigation are dependent on the specific agricultural SMS (e.g., water management, fertilization and OM inputs) and will require more research before generalized conclusions can be reached. Additional dedicated research is needed to examine the impact of agricultural SMS on the combination of SOC stocks, GHG emissions and N leaching in long-term experiments. The combination of multiple agricultural SMS in practice may lead to interaction effects that may in turn affect the trade-offs and synergies. The impact of different soil management practices should therefore be assessed simultaneously. Our study also revealed a lack of information about how pedoclimatic conditions, spe- cifically on the longer term, may affect trade-offs and syn- ergies. A more concerted use and installation of new long-term field experiments in different pedoclimatic European regions seems to be an essential next step for a comprehensive understanding of the impact of agricul- tural SMS at the European level. These experiments can contribute to the further development of models to improve the quality of predictions of the impact of differ- ent SMS on trade-offs and synergies. Overall, this review provides a unique framework to aid the design of dedi- cated field experiments and targeted measurements as well as simulations to improve our understanding of the identified knowledge gaps. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Peter Maenhout: Conceptualization; methodology; for- mal analysis; investigation; validation; data curation; supervision; funding acquisition; visualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing; pro- ject administration. Claudia Di Bene: Conceptualiza- tion; methodology; investigation; validation; formal analysis; supervision; funding acquisition; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing; pro- ject administration. Maria Luz Cayuela: Investigation; funding acquisition; writing – review and editing. Euge- nio Diaz-Pines: Funding acquisition; writing – review and editing. Anton Govednik: Investigation; formal analysis; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Frida Keuper: Investigation; funding acquisi- tion; writing – review and editing. Sara Mavsar: Investi- gation; formal analysis; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Rok Mihelic: Investiga- tion; formal analysis; funding acquisition; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Adam O'Toole: Investigation; formal analysis; funding acquisition; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Ana Schwarzmann: Investigation; formal anal- ysis; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Marjetka Suhadolc: Investigation; formal analysis; funding acquisition; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Alina Syp: Investigation; formal MAENHOUT ET AL. 15 of 21 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License analysis; funding acquisition; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Elena Valkama: Conceptu- alization; methodology; investigation; formal analysis; supervision; funding acquisition; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing; project administration. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors also thank Alessandra Lagomarsino (CREA, Italy) for input on the manuscript and Miriam Levenson (ILVO, Belgium) for English-language editing. FUNDING INFORMATION This research fits in the scope of the project P ommit— sustainable management of soil organic matter to miti- gate trade-offs between C sequestration and nitrous oxide, methane and nitrate losses. That project received funding from European Unions’ Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No. 862695EJPSOIL EJP SOIL. Funding acquisition: Peter Maenhout, Claudia Di Bene, Maria Luz Cayuela, Eugenio Diaz-Pines, Frida Keuper, Rok Mihelic, Adam O'Toole, Marjetka Suhadolc, Alina Syp and Elena Valkama. Eugenio Diaz-Pines received funds from the Austrian Climate and Energy Fund (‘ACRP11— CASAS—KR18AC0K14633’). CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT None of the authors have a conflict of interest to disclose. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The database that supports the findings of this study is free to download in Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.10959077). The database should be cited as: Maenhout, P., Di Bene, C., Cayuela, M. L., Govednik, A., Keuper, F., Mavsar, S., Mihelic, R., O'Toole, A., Schwarz- mann, A., Suhadolc, M., Syp, A., & Valkama, E. (2024). Knowledge gaps on trade-offs of soil carbon sequestration related to soil management strategies (Version 1.0.0) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 10959077. ORCID Peter Maenhout https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6596-9697 Claudia Di Bene https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3830-251X Maria Luz Cayuela https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0929- 4204 Eugenio Diaz-Pines https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9935- 106X Anton Govednik https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9103-3665 Frida Keuper https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8673-7991 Sara Mavsar https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0779-8796 Rok Mihelic https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6845-1903 Adam O'Toole https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4791-6975 Ana Schwarzmann https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4970- 4414 Marjetka Suhadolc https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1550- 1636 Alina Syp https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0190-9350 Elena Valkama https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8337-8070 REFERENCES Abad, J., de Mendoza, I. H., Marín, D., Orcaray, L., & Santesteban, L. G. (2021). Cover crops in viticulture. A system- atic review (1): Implications on soil characteristics and biodi- versity in vineyard. OENO One, 55, 295–312. Abalos, D., Liang, Z., Dörsch, P., & Elsgaard, L. (2020). Trade-offs in greenhouse gas emissions across a liming-induced gradient of soil pH: Role of microbial structure and functioning. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 150, 108006. Abdalla, K., Chivenge, P., Ciais, P., & Chaplot, V. (2016). No-tillage lessens soil CO2 emissions the most under arid and sandy soil conditions: Results from a meta-analysis. Biogeosciences, 13, 3619–3633. Abdalla, M., Hastings, A., Cheng, K., Yue, Q., Chadwick, D., Espenberg, M., Truu, J., Rees, R. M., & Smith, P. (2019). A criti- cal review of the impacts of cover crops on nitrogen leaching, net greenhouse gas balance and crop productivity. Global Change Biology, 25, 2530–2543. Aguilera, E., Lassaletta, L., Gattinger, A., & Gimeno, B. S. (2013). Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adap- tation in Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 168, 25–36. Aguilera, E., Lassaletta, L., Sanz-Cobena, A., Garnier, J., & Vallejo, A. (2013). The potential of organic fertilizers and water management to reduce N2O emissions in Mediterranean cli- mate cropping systems. A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 164, 32–52. Ahmad, M., Rajapaksha, A. U., Lim, J. E., Zhang, M., Bolan, N., Mohan, D., Vithanage, M., Lee, S. S., & Ok, Y. S. (2014). Bio- char as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: A review. Chemosphere, 99, 19–33. Alluvione, F., Bertora, C., Zavattaro, L., & Grignani, C. (2010). Nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions following green manure and compost fertilization in corn. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 74, 384–395. Autret, B., Beaudoin, N., Rakotovololona, L., Bertrand, M., Grandeau, G., Gréhan, E., Ferchaud, F., & Mary, B. (2019). Can alternative cropping systems mitigate nitrogen losses and improve GHG balance? Results from a 19-yr experiment in northern France. Geoderma, 342, 20–33. Baggs, E., Watson, C., & Rees, R. (2000). The fate of nitrogen from incorporated cover crop and green manure residues. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 56, 153–163. Basche, A. D., Miguez, F. E., Kaspar, T. C., & Castellano, M. J. (2014). Do cover crops increase or decrease nitrous oxide emissions? A meta-analysis. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 69, 471–482. Benckiser, G., Schartel, T., & Weiske, A. (2015). Control of NO 3 and N 2 O emissions in agroecosystems: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35, 1059–1074. Bergholm, J., Olsson, B. A., Vegerfors, B., & Persson, T. (2015). Nitrogen fluxes after clear-cutting. Ground vegetation uptake 16 of 21 MAENHOUT ET AL. 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License and stump/root immobilisation reduce N leaching after experi- mental liming, acidification and N fertilisation. Forest Ecology and Management, 342, 64–75. Blanco-Canqui, H., & Lal, R. (2008). Principles of soil conservation and management. Springer Science & Business Media. Bolinder, M. A., Crotty, F., Elsen, A., Frac, M., Kismanyoky, T., Lipiec, J., Tits, M., Toth, Z., & Kätterer, T. (2020). The effect of crop residues, cover crops, manures and nitrogen fertilization on soil organic carbon changes in agroecosystems: A synthesis of reviews. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 25, 929–952. Borchard, N., Schirrmann, M., Cayuela, M. L., Kammann, C., Wrage-Mönnig, N., Estavillo, J. M., Fuertes-Mendizabal, T., Sigua, G., Spokas, K., & Ippolito, J. A. (2019). Biochar, soil and land-use interactions that reduce nitrate leaching and N2O emissions: A meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 651, 2354–2364. Cayuela, M. L., Aguilera, E., Sanz-Cobena, A., Adams, D. C., Abalos, D., Barton, L., Ryals, R., Silver, W. L., Alfaro, M. A., & Pappa, V. A. (2017). Direct nitrous oxide emissions in Mediter- ranean climate cropping systems: Emission factors based on a meta-analysis of available measurement data. Agriculture, Eco- systems & Environment, 238, 25–35. Cayuela, M. L., Van Zwieten, L., Singh, B., Jeffery, S., Roig, A., & Sanchez-Monedero, M. (2014). Biochar's role in mitigating soil nitrous oxide emissions: A review and meta-analysis. Agricul- ture, Ecosystems & Environment, 191, 5–16. Chen, H., Li, X., Hu, F., & Shi, W. (2013). Soil nitrous oxide emis- sions following crop residue addition: A meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 19, 2956–2964. Chen, J., Feng, M., Cui, Y., & Liu, G. (2021). The impacts of nitro- gen addition on upland soil methane uptake: A global meta- analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 795, 148863. Cong, W., Meng, J., & Ying, S. C. (2018). Impact of soil properties on the soil methane flux response to biochar addition: A meta-anal- ysis. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 20, 1202–1209. Cornelissen, G., Rutherford, D. W., Arp, H. P. H., Dörsch, P., Kelly, C. N., & Rostad, C. E. (2013). Sorption of pure N2O to biochars and other organic and inorganic materials under anhydrous conditions. Environmental Science & Technology, 47, 7704–7712. Daryanto, S., Wang, L., & Jacinthe, P.-A. (2017). Impacts of no- tillage management on nitrate loss from corn, soybean and wheat cultivation: A meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 7, 12117. De Notaris, C., Rasmussen, J., Sørensen, P., & Olesen, J. E. (2018). Nitrogen leaching: A crop rotation perspective on the effect of N surplus, field management and use of catch crops. Agricul- ture, Ecosystems & Environment, 255, 1–11. Debaeke, P., Pellerin, S., & Scopel, E. (2017). Climate-smart crop- ping systems for temperate and tropical agriculture: Mitigation, adaptation and trade-offs. Cahiers Agricultures, 26, 34002. Diacono, M., & Montemurro, F. (2011). Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. Sustainable Agriculture, 2, 761–786. Dietzen, C., Harrison, R., & Michelsen-Correa, S. (2018). Effective- ness of enhanced mineral weathering as a carbon sequestration tool and alternative to agricultural lime: An incubation experi- ment. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 74, 251–258. Dignac, M.-F., Derrien, D., Barré, P., Barot, S., Cécillon, L., Chenu, C., Chevallier, T., Freschet, G. T., Garnier, P., & Guenet, B. (2017). Increasing soil carbon storage: Mechanisms, effects of agricultural practices and proxies. A review. Agron- omy for Sustainable Development, 37, 1–27. Doltra, J., Gallejones, P., Olesen, J., Hansen, S., Frøseth, R., Krauss, M., Stalenga, J., Jonczyk, K., Martínez- Fernandez, A., & Pacini, G. (2019). Simulating soil fertility management effects on crop yield and soil nitrogen dynamics in field trials under organic farming in Europe. Field Crops Research, 233, 1–11. Don, A., Osborne, B., Hastings, A., Skiba, U., Carter, M. S., Drewer, J., Flessa, H., Freibauer, A., Hyvönen, N., & Jones, M. B. (2012). Land-use change to bioenergy production in E urope: Implications for the greenhouse gas balance and soil carbon. GCB Bioenergy, 4, 372–391. Don, A., Seidel, F., Leifeld, J., Kätterer, T., Martin, M., Pellerin, S., Emde, D., Seitz, D., & Chenu, C. (2024). Carbon sequestration in soils and climate change mitigation—Definitions and pit- falls. Global Change Biology, 30, e16983. Dong, X., Wang, J., Zhang, X., Dang, H., Singh, B. P., Liu, X., & Sun, H. (2022). Long-term saline water irrigation decreased soil organic carbon and inorganic carbon contents. Agricultural Water Management, 270, 107760. Egan, G., Crawley, M. J., & Fornara, D. A. (2018). Effects of long- term grassland management on the carbon and nitrogen pools of different soil aggregate fractions. Science of the Total Environ- ment, 613, 810–819. Emde, D., Hannam, K. D., Most, I., Nelson, L. M., & Jones, M. D. (2021). Soil organic carbon in irrigated agricultural systems: A meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 27, 3898–3910. European Commission. (2006). Communication from the Commis- sion to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. In: Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (COM 2006. 231). Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. Eze, S., Palmer, S. M., & Chapman, P. J. (2018). Soil organic carbon stock in grasslands: Effects of inorganic fertilizers, liming and grazing in different climate settings. Journal of Environmental Management, 223, 74–84. Fornara, D., Steinbeiss, S., McNamara, N., Gleixner, G., Oakley, S., Poulton, P., Macdonald, A., & Bardgett, R. D. (2011). Increases in soil organic carbon sequestration can reduce the global warming potential of long-term liming to permanent grassland. Global Change Biology, 17, 1925–1934. Gattinger, A., Muller, A., Haeni, M., Skinner, C., Fliessbach, A., Buchmann, N., Mäder, P., Stolze, M., Smith, P., & Scialabba, N. E.-H. (2012). Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 18226–18231. Goh, K. M. (2011). Greater mitigation of climate change by organic than conventional agriculture: A review. Biological Agricul- ture & Horticulture, 27, 205–229. Goulding, K. (2016). Soil acidification and the importance of liming agricultural soils with particular reference to the United Kingdom. Soil Use and Management, 32, 390–399. Graham, R. F., Wortman, S. E., & Pittelkow, C. M. (2017). Compari- son of organic and integrated nutrient management strategies for reducing soil N2O emissions. Sustainability, 9, 510. MAENHOUT ET AL. 17 of 21 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Gross, A., & Glaser, B. (2021). Meta-analysis on how manure appli- cation changes soil organic carbon storage. Scientific Reports, 11, 5516. Guenet, B., Gabrielle, B., Chenu, C., Arrouays, D., Balesdent, J., Bernoux, M., Bruni, E., Caliman, J. P., Cardinael, R., & Chen, S. (2021). Can N2O emissions offset the benefits from soil organic carbon storage? Global Change Biology, 27, 237–256. Haddaway, N. R., Hedlund, K., Jackson, L. E., Kätterer, T., Lugato, E., Thomsen, I. K., Jørgensen, H. B., & Isberg, P.-E. (2017). How does tillage intensity affect soil organic carbon? A systematic review. Environmental Evidence, 6, 1–48. Hansen, S., Berland Frøseth, R., Stenberg, M., Stalenga, J., Olesen, J. E., Krauss, M., Radzikowski, P., Doltra, J., Nadeem, S., & Torp, T. (2019). Reviews and syntheses: Review of causes and sources of N2O emissions and NO3 leaching from organic arable crop rotations. Biogeosciences, 16, 2795–2819. Harter, J., Guzman-Bustamante, I., Kuehfuss, S., Ruser, R., Well, R., Spott, O., Kappler, A., & Behrens, S. (2016). Gas entrapment and microbial N2O reduction reduce N2O emis- sions from a biochar-amended sandy clay loam soil. Scientific Reports, 6, 39574. Hénault, C., Grossel, A., Mary, B., Roussel, M., & Léonard, J. (2012). Nitrous oxide emission by agricultural soils: A review of spatial and temporal variability for mitigation. Pedosphere, 22, 426–433. Hijbeek, R., Ten Berge, H., Whitmore, A., Barkusky, D., Schröder, J., & Van Ittersum, M. (2018). Nitrogen fertiliser replacement values for organic amendments appear to increase with N application rates. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 110, 105–115. Hu, T., Sørensen, P., & Olesen, J. E. (2018). Soil carbon varies between different organic and conventional management schemes in arable agriculture. European Journal of Agronomy, 94, 79–88. Huang, Y., Ren, W., Wang, L., Hui, D., Grove, J. H., Yang, X., Tao, B., & Goff, B. (2018). Greenhouse gas emissions and crop yield in no-tillage systems: A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosys- tems & Environment, 268, 144–153. IPCC. (2006). Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In H. S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, & K. Tanabe (Eds.), National greenhouse gas inventories programme. IGES. Jacobs, A., Jungert, S., & Koch, H.-J. (2015). Soil organic carbon as affected by direct drilling and mulching in sugar beet–wheat rotations. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 61, 1079– 1087. Jarecki, M. K., & Lal, R. (2003). Crop management for soil carbon sequestration. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 22, 471–502. Jeffery, S., Verheijen, F. G., Kammann, C., & Abalos, D. (2016). Bio- char effects on methane emissions from soils: A meta-analysis. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 101, 251–258. Ji, C., Jin, Y., Li, C., Chen, J., Kong, D., Yu, K., Liu, S., & Zou, J. (2018). Variation in soil methane release or uptake responses to biochar amendment: A separate meta-analysis. Ecosystems, 21, 1692–1705. 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 Biology and Biochemistry, 143, 107735. Kammann, C., Ippolito, J., Hagemann, N., Borchard, N., Cayuela, M. L., Estavillo, J. M., Fuertes-Mendizabal, T., Jeffery, S., Kern, J., & Novak, J. (2017). Biochar as a tool to reduce the agricultural greenhouse-gas burden–knowns, unknowns and future research needs. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 25, 114–139. Khaliq, M. A., Tarin, M. W. K., Jingxia, G., Yanhui, C., & Guo, W. (2019). Soil liming effects on CH4, N2O emission and Cd, Pb accumulation in upland and paddy rice. Environmental Pollu- tion, 248, 408–420. Kim, D.-G., & Kirschbaum, M. U. (2015). The effect of land-use change on the net exchange rates of greenhouse gases: A com- pilation of estimates. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 208, 114–126. Kim, D.-G., Kirschbaum, M. U., & Beedy, T. L. (2016). Carbon sequestration and net emissions of CH4 and N2O under agrofor- estry: Synthesizing available data and suggestions for future studies. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 226, 65–78. Krauss, M., Ruser, R., Müller, T., Hansen, S., Mäder, P., & Gattinger, A. (2017). Impact of reduced tillage on greenhouse gas emissions and soil carbon stocks in an organic grass-clover ley-winter wheat cropping sequence. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 239, 324–333. Kuang, W., Gao, X., Tenuta, M., & Zeng, F. (2021). A global meta- analysis of nitrous oxide emission from drip-irrigated cropping system. Global Change Biology, 27, 3244–3256. Laird, D., & Rogovska, N. (2015). Biochar effects on nutrient leach- ing. In Biochar for environmental management (pp. 521–542). Routledge. Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 304, 1623–1627. Lehmann, J., Abiven, S., Kleber, M., Pan, G., Singh, B. P., Sohi, S. P., Zimmerman, A. R., Lehmann, J., & Joseph, S. (2015). Persistence of biochar in soil. Biochar for Environmental Management: Sci- ence, Technology and Implementation, 2, 233–280. Lehmann, J., & Joseph, S. (2015). Biochar for environmental man- agement: Science, technology and implementation. Routledge. Lehtinen, T., Dersch, G., Söllinger, J., Baumgarten, A., Schlatter, N., Aichberger, K., & Spiegel, H. (2017). Long-term amendment of four different compost types on a loamy silt Cambisol: Impact on soil organic matter, nutrients and yields. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 63, 663–673. 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 car- bon and greenhouse gas emissions in European agricultural soils. Soil Use and Management, 30, 524–538. Leifeld, J., & Fuhrer, J. (2010). Organic farming and soil carbon sequestration: What do we really know about the benefits? Ambio, 39, 585–599. Lochon, I., Carrère, P., Revaillot, S., & Bloor, J. M. (2018). Interac- tive effects of liming and nitrogen management on carbon min- eralization in grassland soils. Applied Soil Ecology, 130, 143–148. Lugato, E., Leip, A., & Jones, A. (2018). Mitigation potential of soil carbon management overestimated by neglecting N2O emis- sions. Nature Climate Change, 8, 219–223. Luo, G., Li, L., Friman, V.-P., Guo, J., Guo, S., Shen, Q., & Ling, N. (2018). Organic amendments increase crop yields by improving microbe-mediated soil functioning of agroecosystems: A meta- analysis. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 124, 105–115. 18 of 21 MAENHOUT ET AL. 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Maillard, E., & Angers, D. A. (2014). Animal manure application and soil organic carbon stocks: A meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 20, 666–679. Mangalassery, S., Sjögersten, S., Sparkes, D. L., Sturrock, C. J., Craigon, J., & Mooney, S. J. (2014). To what extent can zero till- age lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from tem- perate soils? Scientific Reports, 4, 4586. McDaniel, M., Tiemann, L., & Grandy, A. (2014). Does agricultural crop diversity enhance soil microbial biomass and organic mat- ter dynamics? A meta-analysis. Ecological Applications, 24, 560–570. Meurer, K. H., Haddaway, N. R., Bolinder, M. A., & Kätterer, T. (2018). Tillage intensity affects total SOC stocks in boreo- temperate regions only in the topsoil—A systematic review using an ESM approach. Earth-Science Reviews, 177, 613–622. Minasny, B., Malone, B. P., McBratney, A. B., Angers, D. A., Arrouays, D., Chambers, A., Chaplot, V., Chen, Z.-S., Cheng, K., & Das, B. S. (2017). Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geo- derma, 292, 59–86. Morugan-Coronado, A., Linares, C., Gomez-Lopez, M. D., Faz, A´., & Zornoza, R. (2020). The impact of intercropping, till- age and fertilizer type on soil and crop yield in fruit orchards under Mediterranean conditions: A meta-analysis of field stud- ies. Agricultural Systems, 178, 102736. Muhammad, I., Sainju, U. M., Zhao, F., Khan, A., Ghimire, R., Fu, X., & Wang, J. (2019). Regulation of soil CO2 and N2O emissions by cover crops: A meta-analysis. Soil and Tillage Research, 192, 103–112. Murugan, R., Koch, H.-J., & Joergensen, R. G. (2014). Long-term influence of different tillage intensities on soil microbial bio- mass, residues and community structure at different depths. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 50, 487–498. Novak, S., & Fiorelli, J.-L. (2010). Greenhouse gases and ammonia emissions from organic mixed crop-dairy systems: A critical review of mitigation options. Agronomy for Sustainable Develop- ment, 30, 215–236. Oertel, C., Matschullat, J., Zurba, K., Zimmermann, F., & Erasmi, S. (2016). Greenhouse gas emissions from soils—A review. Geochemistry, 76, 327–352. Olesen, J. E., Rees, R. M., Recous, S., Bleken, M. A., Abalos, D., Ahuja, I., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Carozzi, M., De Notaris, C., & Ernfors, M. (2023). Challenges of accounting nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural crop residues. Global Change Biol- ogy, 29, 6846–6855. Paradelo, R., Virto, I., & Chenu, C. (2015). Net effect of liming on soil organic carbon stocks: A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 202, 98–107. Paustian, K., Lehmann, J., Ogle, S., Reay, D., Robertson, G. P., & Smith, P. (2016). Climate-smart soils. Nature, 532, 49–57. Payen, F. T., Sykes, A., Aitkenhead, M., Alexander, P., Moran, D., & MacLeod, M. (2021). Soil organic carbon seques- tration rates in vineyard agroecosystems under different soil management practices: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cleaner Pro- duction, 290, 125736. Peralta, G., Di Paolo, L., Luotto, I., Omuto, C., Mainka, M., Viatkin, K., & Yigini, Y. (2022). Global soil organic carbon sequestration potential map (GSOCseq v1. 1)–Technical manual (p. 181). Food & Agriculture Org. https://www.fao.org/ documents/card/en/c/cb9002en Pezzolla, D., Bol, R., Gigliotti, G., Sawamoto, T., Lopez, A. L., Cardenas, L., & Chadwick, D. (2012). Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from soils amended with digestate derived from anaerobic treatment of food waste. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, 26, 2422–2430. Poeplau, C., & Don, A. (2015). Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops–a meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 200, 33–41. Powlson, D. S., Stirling, C. M., Thierfelder, C., White, R. P., & Jat, M. L. (2016). Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 220, 164–174. Quemada, M., Baranski, M., Nobel-de Lange, M., Vallejo, A., & Cooper, J. (2013). Meta-analysis of strategies to control nitrate leaching in irrigated agricultural systems and their effects on crop yield. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 174, 1–10. Quin, P., Joseph, S., Husson, O., Donne, S., Mitchell, D., Munroe, P., Phelan, D., Cowie, A., & Van Zwieten, L. (2015). Lowering N2O emissions from soils using eucalypt biochar: The importance of redox reactions. Scientific Reports, 5, 16773. Rumpel, C., Amiraslani, F., Chenu, C., Garcia Cardenas, M., Kaonga, M., Koutika, L.-S., Ladha, J., Madari, B., Shirato, Y., & Smith, P. (2020). The 4p1000 initiative: Opportunities, limita- tions and challenges for implementing soil organic carbon sequestration as a sustainable development strategy. Ambio, 49, 350–360. Sanaullah, M., Usman, M., Wakeel, A., Cheema, S. A., Ashraf, I., & Farooq, M. (2020). Terrestrial ecosystem functioning affected by agricultural management systems: A review. Soil and Tillage Research, 196, 104464. Sandén, T., Spiegel, H., Stüger, H. P., Schlatter, N., Haslmayr, H. P., Zavattaro, L., Grignani, C., Bechini, L., D0 hose, T., & Molendijk, L. (2018). European long-term field experiments: Knowledge gained about alternative management practices. Soil Use and Management, 34, 167–176. Sapkota, A., Haghverdi, A., Avila, C. C., & Ying, S. C. (2020). Irriga- tion and greenhouse gas emissions: A review of field-based studies. Soil Systems, 4, 20. Shaaban, M., Hu, R., Wu, Y., Younas, A., Xu, X., Sun, Z., Jiang, Y., & Lin, S. (2019). Mitigation of N2O emissions from urine treated acidic soils by liming. Environmental Pollution, 255, 113237. Shackelford, G. E., Kelsey, R., & Dicks, L. V. (2019). Effects of cover crops on multiple ecosystem services: Ten meta-analyses of data from arable farmland in California and the Mediterranean. Land Use Policy, 88, 104204. Shakoor, A., Shahzad, S. M., Chatterjee, N., Arif, M. S., Farooq, T. H., Altaf, M. M., Tufail, M. A., Dar, A. A., & Mehmood, T. (2021). Nitrous oxide emission from agricultural soils: Application of animal manure or biochar? A global meta- analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 285, 112170. Siedt, M., Schäffer, A., Smith, K. E., Nabel, M., Roß-Nickoll, M., & van Dongen, J. T. (2021). Comparing straw, compost, and bio- char regarding their suitability as agricultural soil amendments to affect soil structure, nutrient leaching, microbial communi- ties, and the fate of pesticides. Science of the Total Environment, 751, 141607. MAENHOUT ET AL. 19 of 21 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Six, J., Ogle, S. M., Jay Breidt, F., Conant, R. T., Mosier, A. R., & Paustian, K. (2004). The potential to mitigate global warming with no-tillage management is only realized when practised in the long term. Global Change Biology, 10, 155–160. Smith, P. (2016). Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Global Change Biology, 22, 1315–1324. Sørensen, C. G., & Nielsen, V. (2005). Operational analyses and model comparison of machinery systems for reduced tillage. Biosystems Engineering, 92, 143–155. Sykes, A. J., Macleod, M., Eory, V., Rees, R. M., Payen, F., Myrgiotis, V., Williams, M., Sohi, S., Hillier, J., & Moran, D. (2020). Characterising the biophysical, economic and social impacts of soil carbon sequestration as a greenhouse gas removal technology. Global Change Biology, 26, 1085–1108. Taghizadeh-Toosi, A., Hansen, E. M., Olesen, J. E., Baral, K. R., & Petersen, S. O. (2022). Interactive effects of straw management, tillage, and a cover crop on nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate leaching from a sandy loam soil. Science of the Total Environ- ment, 828, 154316. Tellez-Rio, A., García-Marco, S., Navas, M., Lopez-Solanilla, E., Rees, R. M., Tenorio, J. L., & Vallejo, A. (2015). Nitrous oxide and methane emissions from a vetch cropping season are chan- ged by long-term tillage practices in a Mediterranean agroeco- system. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 51, 77–88. Tellez-Rio, A., García-Marco, S., Navas, M., Lopez-Solanilla, E., Tenorio, J. L., & Vallejo, A. (2015). N2O and CH4 emissions from a fallow–wheat rotation with low N input in conservation and conventional tillage under a Mediterranean agroecosystem. Science of the Total Environment, 508, 85–94. Thapa, R., Mirsky, S. B., & Tully, K. L. (2018). Cover crops reduce nitrate leaching in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Quality, 47, 1400–1411. Tiefenbacher, A., Sandén, T., Haslmayr, H.-P., Miloczki, J., Wenzel, W., & Spiegel, H. (2021). Optimizing carbon sequestra- tion in croplands: A synthesis. Agronomy, 11, 882. Tisserant, A., & Cherubini, F. (2019). Potentials, limitations, co- benefits, and trade-offs of biochar applications to soils for cli- mate change mitigation. Land, 8, 179. Trost, B., Prochnow, A., Drastig, K., Meyer-Aurich, A., Ellmer, F., & Baumecker, M. (2013). Irrigation, soil organic car- bon and N 2 O emissions. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 33, 733–749. Trost, B., Prochnow, A., Meyer-Aurich, A., Drastig, K., Baumecker, M., & Ellmer, F. (2016). Effects of irrigation and nitrogen fertilization on the greenhouse gas emissions of a cropping system on a sandy soil in northeast Germany. European Journal of Agronomy, 81, 117–128. Valkama, E., Lemola, R., Känkänen, H., & Turtola, E. (2015). Meta- analysis of the effects of undersown catch crops on nitrogen leaching loss and grain yields in the Nordic countries. Agricul- ture, Ecosystems & Environment, 203, 93–101. Valkama, E., Tzemi, D., Ramon Esparza-Robles, U., Syp, A., O'Toole, A., & Maenhout, P. (2024). Effectiveness of soil man- agement strategies for mitigation of N2O emissions in European arable land: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Soil Science, 75(3), e13488. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13488 Van Zwieten, L., Kammann, C., Cayuela, M. L., Singh, B. P., Joseph, S., Kimber, S., Donne, S., Clough, T., & Spokas, K. A. (2015). Biochar effects on nitrous oxide and methane emissions from soil. In Biochar for environmental management (pp. 489– 520). Routledge. Vazquez, E., Teutscherova, N., Pastorelli, R., Lagomarsino, A., Giagnoni, L., & Renella, G. (2020). Liming reduces N2O emis- sions from Mediterranean soil after-rewetting and affects the size, structure and transcription of microbial communities. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 147, 107839. Velthof, G. L., Kuikman, P. J., & Oenema, O. (2003). Nitrous oxide emission from animal manures applied to soil under controlled conditions. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 37, 221–230. Verhoeven, E., Pereira, E., Decock, C., Suddick, E., Angst, T., & Six, J. (2017). Toward a better assessment of biochar–nitrous oxide mitigation potential at the field scale. Journal of Environ- mental Quality, 46, 237–246. Wang, M., Pendall, E., Fang, C., Li, B., & Nie, M. (2018). A global perspective on agroecosystem nitrogen cycles after returning crop residue. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 266, 49–54. Webb, J. R., Clough, T. J., & Quayle, W. C. (2021). A review of indi- rect N2O emission factors from artificial agricultural waters. Environmental Research Letters, 16, 043005. Weldon, S., Rasse, D. P., Budai, A., Tomic, O., & Dörsch, P. (2019). The effect of a biochar temperature series on denitrification: Which biochar properties matter? Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 135, 173–183. Wells, N. S., & Baggs, E. M. (2014). Char amendments impact soil nitrous oxide production during ammonia oxidation. Soil Sci- ence Society of America Journal, 78, 1656–1660. Wijesekara, H., Colyvas, K., Rippon, P., Hoang, S. A., Bolan, N. S., Manna, M. C., Thangavel, R., Seshadri, B., Vithanage, M., & Awad, Y. M. (2021). Carbon sequestration value of biosolids applied to soil: A global meta-analysis. Journal of Environmen- tal Management, 284, 112008. Woolf, D., Amonette, J. E., Street-Perrott, F. A., Lehmann, J., & Joseph, S. (2010). Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature Communications, 1, 56. Xia, L., Lam, S. K., Wolf, B., Kiese, R., Chen, D., & Butterbach- Bahl, K. (2018). Trade-offs between soil carbon sequestra- tion and reactive nitrogen losses under straw return in global agroecosystems. Global Change Biology, 24, 5919– 5932. Yao, Z., Guo, H., Wang, Y., Zhan, Y., Zhang, T., Wang, R., Zheng, X., & Butterbach-Bahl, K. (2024). A global meta- analysis of yield-scaled N2O emissions and its mitigation efforts for maize, wheat, and rice. Global Change Biology, 30, e17177. Zaman, M., & Nguyen, M. (2010). Effect of lime or zeolite on N2O and N2 emissions from a pastoral soil treated with urine or nitrate-N fertilizer under field conditions. Agriculture, Ecosys- tems & Environment, 136, 254–261. Zhang, W., Zhou, G., Li, Q., Liao, N., Guo, H., Min, W., Ma, L., Ye, J., & Hou, Z. (2016). Saline water irrigation stimulate N2O emission from a drip-irrigated cotton field. Acta Agri- culturae Scandinavica, Section B—Soil & Plant Science, 66, 141–152. Zhou, M., Zhu, B., Wang, S., Zhu, X., Vereecken, H., & Brüggemann, N. (2017). Stimulation of N2O emission by manure application to agricultural soils may largely offset 20 of 21 MAENHOUT ET AL. 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License carbon benefits: A global meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 23, 4068–4083. Zhu, Q., Liu, L., Wang, C., Wan, Y., Yang, R., Mou, J., Liu, J., Wu, Y., Tang, S., & Zhu, T. (2023). Carbon and nitrogen frac- tions control soil N2O emissions and related functional genes under land-use change in the tropics. Environmental Pollution, 335, 122370. Zikeli, S., Gruber, S., Teufel, C.-F., Hartung, K., & Claupein, W. (2013). Effects of reduced tillage on crop yield, plant avail- able nutrients and soil organic matter in a 12-year long-term trial under organic management. Sustainability, 5, 3876– 3894. Zornoza, R., Acosta, J. A., Gabarron, M., Gomez-Garrido, M., Sanchez-Navarro, V., Terrero, A., Martínez-Martínez, S., Faz, A´., & Pérez-Pastor, A. (2018). Greenhouse gas emissions and soil organic matter dynamics in woody crop orchards with different irrigation regimes. Science of the Total Environment, 644, 1429–1438. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article. How to cite this article: Maenhout, P., Di Bene, C., Cayuela, M. L., Diaz-Pines, E., Govednik, A., Keuper, F., Mavsar, S., Mihelic, R., O'Toole, A., Schwarzmann, A., Suhadolc, M., Syp, A., & Valkama, E. (2024). Trade-offs and synergies of soil carbon sequestration: Addressing knowledge gaps related to soil management strategies. European Journal of Soil Science, 75(3), e13515. https://doi. org/10.1111/ejss.13515 MAENHOUT ET AL. 21 of 21 13652389, 2024, 3, D ow nloaded from https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13515 by Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd, W iley Online Library on [18/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License