94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
Deepak Jaiswal1,2*
Khadeeja Mol Siddique1,3
T. R. Jayalekshmi1
A. S. Sajitha1
Amit Kushwaha1
Sruthi Surendran1- 1Environmental Sciences and Sustainable Engineering Centre (ESSENCE), Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Palakkad, Kerala, India
- 2Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Palakkad, Kerala, India
- 3College of Climate Change and Environmental Science, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur, Kerala, India
Despite advancements in electrification and the transition to solar-based electricity production, India will continue to depend on land-based carbon offsets to achieve its net-zero target. Land-based climate mitigation strategies in India can be implemented by utilizing underutilized marginal lands or increasing land availability through technological interventions to close agricultural yield gaps. Both below-ground (e.g., soil carbon) and above-ground (e.g., standing tree biomass) options offer viable pathways for such measures. Key strategies include cultivating perennial bioenergy feedstocks, afforestation, establishing fast-growing Miyawaki forests, restoring wetlands and mangroves, and applying biosolids to land. However, caution is essential to prevent unintended consequences, such as clearing natural forests or introducing microplastics into soils. The cost of carbon sequestration and the resilience or permanence of stored carbon will be critical factors in determining the preferred approach. Additionally, land-based strategies often overlap spatially, making GIS-based tools indispensable for identifying optimal solutions tailored to local conditions. Integrating these strategies into the national carbon budget can enhance transparency and contribute significantly to India’s net-zero emissions goal.
1 Introduction
Limited land availability is often seen as a barrier to implementing land-based solutions like biofuel expansion in India. This concern stems from India supporting over 17% of the global population on just 2.5% of the world’s land area. However, India is also a leading generator of land-based carbon credits, with its net-zero strategy relying heavily on measures like afforestation and biofuels. What strategies can help India further leverage land-based approaches to achieve its net-zero target? Here, we address this question by summarizing land-based measures currently being discussed in academic and policy forums in India.
Deep electrification in conjunction with decarbonization of electricity sector can possibly reduce India’s carbon emissions to 1,300 Million tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) year−1 by 2050, down from the current 2,600 Mt. CO2-eq year−1 (Prajapati et al., 2024) while sustaining a compounded annual economic growth rate of 5.4% that supports the well-being of more than 1.5 billion people (Vats and Mathur, 2022). Both carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) techniques, which target emissions from CO2-intensive industries (Prajapati et al., 2024), and nature-based solutions (James et al., 2024; Seddon et al., 2021; Soterroni et al., 2023)—including cellulosic bioenergy from perennials (Robertson et al., 2022)—will need to play a crucial role in offsetting remaining residual CO2-eq emissions. The potential rate of soil carbon sequestration in India is estimated to stand at 143-to-180 Mt. CO2 year−1 (Lal, 2004b), representing slightly more than 10% of the total residual emission that needs to be offset to achieve net-zero emission. Given the significant variability in land use and land cover across India (Supplementary Table S1), a diverse range of practices will need to be implemented (Beaury et al., 2024). This mini-review explores various land-based strategies for climate change mitigation, taking into account the country’s unique biogeography, population dynamics, and environmental conditions.
2 Land use changes caused by solar power plants
Utilizing approximately 0.3–1.4% of India’s land area could generate enough power to achieve 75% land-based solar integration into the national electricity mix, with a carbon footprint of 0.4-to-10.8 grams of CO2 equivalents per kilowatt-hour (gCO2-eq kWh−1; Van De Ven et al., 2021)—a fraction of the current electricity emission intensity of 711 gCO2-eq kWh−1 (Sengupta et al., 2022). The relatively small land-use changes associated with large-scale expansion of solar plants can still influence terrestrial carbon balance, depending on the existing carbon stocks and prior land use (Van De Ven et al., 2021; Gomez-Casanovas et al., 2023). Solar plants can impact soil carbon and nutrient cycling by altering albedo, plant available radiation, temperature, water availability, and wind speed (Armstrong et al., 2014). The installation of solar panels on marginal lands (Supplementary Table S1) with low soil organic carbon (SOC) is unlikely to negatively affect the carbon budget (Van De Ven et al., 2021). However, placing them on productive agricultural land or areas providing essential ecosystem services could result in relatively higher emission intensity (Van De Ven et al., 2021). Recent efforts have focused on integrating solar energy with agriculture using agrovoltaics (Gomez-Casanovas et al., 2023) and ecosystems using ecovoltaics (Sturchio and Knapp, 2023) to balance competition between solar plants and other beneficial land uses. While there is no conclusive evidence yet on the impact of these systems on plant–soil carbon cycling, long-term studies are necessary to fully understand their effects (Gomez-Casanovas et al., 2023). Nevertheless, agrovoltaic and ecovoltaic approaches could lead to solar array designs that could promote climate regulation, local cooling, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and the restoration of degraded land (Ketzer et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021; Marcuta et al., 2023). Considering that the land required for solar plants in India is relatively small (Van De Ven et al., 2021), the expansion of solar infrastructure is unlikely to significantly impact the agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) sectors. This leaves room to efficiently harness biological approaches—such as utilizing plants (Somerville et al., 2010; Duarte et al., 2013; Dwivedi et al., 2015; Jaiswal et al., 2017; He et al., 2024), soil microbes (Silverstein et al., 2023), and land-based recycling of biosolids (Brown and Leonard, 2004; Peng et al., 2023)—to support multiple sustainable development goals (SDGs), including climate action (McElwee et al., 2020).
3 Contribution of AFOLU sector in total emission in India: current status
Recent estimates indicate that gross Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) emissions in India totaled ~352 Mt. CO2-eq, with land sector removals offsetting ~181 Mt. CO2-eq, resulting in net emissions of ~171 Mt. CO2-eq (GHG Platform India, 2022). Land-based CO2-eq removal plays a crucial role in India’s strategy to meet its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) targets (Mathur et al., 2021), mostly relying on increasing forest cover area. Currently, the major contributors to CO2-eq emissions from AFOLU are biomass burning, livestock, N2O emissions from managed soils, and rice cultivation, while forests serve as the largest carbon sink (Kumar and Aravindakshan, 2022). Several management options, including the use of nitrification inhibitors (Soares et al., 2023), energy production from crop residues (Athira et al., 2019), and best management practices for reducing methane emissions (Singh et al., 2003), have yet to be adopted at scale with the possibility to significantly lower emissions from the current land uses within the AFOLU sectors in India.
4 Current and past status of SOC in India
The rooting depth (0–30 cm) SOC pool in India’s soils is estimated to be 9.55 petagrams (Pg) C, which stands at ~1.3% of the global pool of 684–724 Pg C (Bhattacharyya et al., 2009). The average value of SOC concentrations in India (3.2 g kg−1) is much lower than the recommended threshold value of 11.1 g kg−1 in tropical soils (Minasny et al., 2017), and this phenomenon can possibly be attributed to unsustainable field management and cultivation practices (Lal, 2004b), including tillage, removal of crop residues for fodder (Lal, 2004a), deforestation (Padbhushan et al., 2022), and overgrazing. By the late 1960s, cultivated soils in India had already undergone a 30 to 60% decline in SOC concentrations compared to levels in undisturbed or native ecosystems (Lal, 2004b; Swarup et al., 1999). This deterioration has continued, with recent studies estimating that ~98 million hectares of land now show severe degradation with extremely low SOC levels (Space Applications Centre, 2018). Recommended practices for rebuilding SOC stocks in India include afforestation on degraded lands, incorporating crop residues into the soil, and cultivating pulses (Minasny et al., 2017). Additionally, several other land-based climate mitigation strategies, including rebuilding SOC stocks, which hold comparable or potentially greater effectiveness but have received less attention, are discussed in the following sections. It is estimated that 7% of SOC potential sequestration in rice-wheat system can be achieved over a period of 20 years at a cost of 6.8 US$ ton−1 of CO2 (Grace et al., 2012).
5 Land sparing for conservation by improving agricultural efficiency
India’s total land under grain production covers approximately 130 Mha (Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, 2023), and recent trends indicate that current yields are significantly lower than their potential. Several yield gap analyses highlight the potential to substantially increase yields of large land area occupying crops such as grains (Jain et al., 2017), oilseeds (Jha et al., 2011), pulses (Rimal and Kumar, 2018), and sugarcane (Singh et al., 2021). The inefficiencies in the current agricultural system present opportunities for improvement through technological interventions, such as precision and smart agriculture (Roy and George, 2020; Balasundram et al., 2023), and through breeding and biotechnological approaches (De Souza et al., 2022; Senapati et al., 2022; Xiong, 2024). Intensifying agricultural practices could free up land for implementing mitigation strategies, potentially making them more effective than land-sharing (Phalan et al., 2011).
6 Repurposing marginal land
Marginal lands (Supplementary Table S1), often unsuitable for intensive agriculture, can be effectively repurposed for cultivating perennial grasses, which are ideal for both bioenergy production and carbon sequestration. In India, with estimates of marginal land availability ranging from 45 to over 140 Mha (Department of Land Resources and NRSC, 2011; Edrisi et al., 2022; Edrisi and Abhilash, 2015; MoRD and NRSC, 2019; NBSS and LUP, 2005), there is significant untapped potential to increase their role in the climate mitigation strategies. Advanced biofuels using perennial grasses as feedstock are said to be a robust way to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Dwivedi et al., 2015; Jaiswal et al., 2017; Field et al., 2020; He et al., 2022) and in fact ameliorate some of the undesirable effects of climate change on temperature and rainfall patterns via atmospheric cooling (He et al., 2022). Introducing improved species of grasses (Lal et al., 1997) and legumes (Kumar et al., 2018) that are more efficient at capturing and storing carbon can also enhance the carbon content of soils in marginal grasslands. Identifying suitable grasses for degraded and marginal lands that can sustainably supply feedstock for biomass energy remains an underexplored area (MoPNG, 2018). Given the sustained high demand for liquid fuels in the foreseeable future (IEA, 2024), land-based, lower-carbon biofuels and feedstocks (Long et al., 2015) are anticipated to play a significant role in meeting the energy needs of India more sustainably (Nouni et al., 2021).
India encompasses a total of 55.76 Mha of land characterized as gullied areas, scrublands, waterlogged regions, degraded forests and pastures, degraded land under plantation crops, shifting cultivation lands, mining and industrial wastelands, sandy terrains, barren rocky stretches, and snow-covered zones, often classified as wasteland (Ayog, 2024). Of this, approximately 20.32 Mha are estimated to be highly suitable and 16.14 Mha are moderately suitable for agroforestry (Ayog, 2024), offering potential for carbon sequestration both above and below ground while also enhancing biodiversity (Nair et al., 2009). Planting oilseed-bearing trees like Karanj offers the dual benefits of agroforestry (Chaubey and Bohre, 2014) and the sustainable production of feedstock for biodiesel production (Mishra et al., 2021). Caution is needed when repurposing marginal lands in India for CO2 offset projects, considering the risk of natural forest clearing specially after the forest (Amendment) Act 2023 (Thakur, 2023).
7 Miyawaki forest
The Miyawaki technique (Miyawaki, 1975) to establish thick forest cover regardless of varying soil and climatic conditions (Hanpattanakit et al., 2022) in ecologically and environmentally degraded regions (Poddar, 2021) allows trees to grow more rapidly, resulting in rapid canopy closure while sequestering carbon at a much greater rate (Schirone et al., 2011; Kueh et al., 2016). Currently, the Miyawaki method is popular only in land-constrained regions such as urban areas (Kuittinen et al., 2023; Daou et al., 2024) but has a high cost (~50,000 USD acre−1) of establishment. Claims in the gray literature indicate that the carbon sequestration rate of Miyawaki forests is approximately 10–15 times greater than that of natural regeneration over a period of 20–30 years (ICLEI South Asia, 2022; Sandip et al., 2022). The estimated cost of CO2 sequestration through the Miyawaki method was found to be approximately $26 ton−1 of CO2 (Supplementary Table S2), significantly higher than the cost ($3 ton−1 of CO2) of natural regeneration (Ravindranath and Somashekhar, 1995) but requiring lesser land area. Their significant potential for positive impacts on biodiversity conservation underscores the need for further investigation into their suitability and long-term sustainability on a larger scale. Currently, most Miyawaki forests in India are funded through corporate social responsibility (CSR) projects, but increased support from government initiatives could further enhance their implementation and impact.
8 Recycling of carbon and nutrients by land application of biosolids
The role of biosolids in land-based greenhouse gas mitigation often goes unrecognized (P. Smith et al., 2013), despite its significant contributions to carbon sequestration. India’s biosolid generation could reach between 34 and 85 Mt. year−1 by 2070, based on a rate of 20–50 kg biosolids year−1 capita−1 (Tezel et al., 2011) and a projected population of 1.7 billion (UN-DESA, 2024), compared to the current sludge production of 2.4 Mt. year−1 (Figure 1A). Improvements in wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure, coupled with a growing population, are expected to lead to an increased availability of biosolids in the future. Land application of biosolids in King County, located in Washington in the northwestern USA, is estimated to generate up to 4.5 t CO2 credits per dry ton, accounting for fertilizer replacement, no-till land management, biofuel production, composting, and digester gas-powered fuel cells (Brown and Leonard, 2004). With improved wastewater collection and management, biosolids in India could potentially contribute to carbon credits ranging from 153 to 382 Mt. CO2 year−1, assuming similar credit values as those observed in the northwestern USA. However, these carbon credits are highly dependent on local conditions, and we anticipate that region-specific methodologies will emerge, facilitating participation in the voluntary carbon market in India in the future. While the potential for soil carbon credit from biosolids application may be limited by biogeochemical constraints (Torri et al., 2014; Wiesmeier et al., 2019), credits from other processes (composting, fuel cells, fertilizer value, and biofuel production) can be expected to be comparable in order of magnitude. While land application offers environmental benefits such as enhanced soil quality, improved plant growth, and increased carbon sequestration, it can also lead to adverse effects like nutrient losses and elevated soil respiration (Gravuer et al., 2019; Rodrigues et al., 2021). Therefore, implementing appropriate regulations is essential to ensure the safe and sustainable reuse of biosolids in agriculture. The inherent local control seems to be playing a greater role than the rate of application in deciding actual climate benefits as a consequence of land application of biosolids (Villa and Ryals, 2021). This is because the maximum potential for carbon sequestration is often specific to soil characteristics, while climate plays a critical role in regulating the rate of mineralization and immobilization – key processes that ensure nutrient availability to plants from organic sources.
Figure 1
Figure 1. (A) Sludge generation in India (wet basis) based on Central Pollution Control Board [CPCB, 2021]; (B) Average microplastics concentration in soil, sewage, and sediment across sampled Indian sites. See Supplementary Table S3 for data sources.
Nevertheless, the land application of biosolids presents challenges, one of the most pressing being the introduction of microplastics into the soil environment (De Souza Machado et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020; Baho et al., 2021; Rillig et al., 2021; Kannankai et al., 2022; Singh S. et al., 2023). Their widespread presence across various locations in India (Figure 1B) necessitates further research into their impact on land-based climate mitigation strategies (Chia et al., 2023), because soil hydraulic properties (Guo et al., 2022), contaminant transport (Ren et al., 2021), soil microbiome (Sun et al., 2022), and soil respiration (Rillig et al., 2021) are greatly impacted by microplastics.
9 Mangroves and freshwater wetland
Intricately linked to land systems, mangroves and freshwater wetlands occupy only about 0.5% (Alongi, 2014) and 1% (Hu et al., 2017) of the global land surface, respectively, yet they store a disproportionately large share of the world’s carbon stock relative to their area (Duarte et al., 2013; Macreadie et al., 2021; Malerba et al., 2022). The waterlogged conditions in these systems inhibit the decomposition of organic material by creating an anaerobic condition, resulting in the buildup of carbon within the soil (Richardson and Vepraskas, 2000), with life spans ranging from a few decades to several million years (Were et al., 2019). However, while wetlands are substantial carbon sinks, they are also sources of CH4 and N2O which can result in net greenhouse gas emissions. This underscores the need for continuous monitoring and management when evaluating these systems as climate solutions (Malerba et al., 2022).
India’s commitment to wetland conservation is demonstrated by its 80 Ramsar sites (MoEFCC, 2024), which collectively cover an area of 1.35 Mha (MoEFCC, 2024) out of the total 15.98 Mha of wetlands in the country (Space Applications Centre, 2013), making it the largest network of Ramsar sites in Asia. India’s mangrove cover spans around 499,200 ha (FSI, 2021), with total carbon stocks estimated at 33.9 Mt. (Singh A. et al., 2023). The Indian government has launched an initiative to add 54,000 ha of Mangroves over a five-year period from 2023 to 2028 (MOEFCC, 2023b).
10 Technical challenges
Identifying suitable plant species (Long et al., 2015; Kumar and Balasubramanian, 2024) for various land-use-based strategies is crucial, considering not only their potential to mitigate CO2 emissions but also their resilience to anticipated climate change. This is essential because the effectiveness of such measures should be assessed over several decades. Establishing standard protocol for Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) of carbon budgets along with quantification of uncertainty is also critical. Usage of ecosystem models capable of simulating carbon cycle (Table 1) in the MRV protocols for the assessment and issuance of carbon credits (Brummitt et al., 2024) is challenging (Garsia et al., 2023), due to poor records of high-resolution land-use history (Tian et al., 2014), leakage of stored soil carbon and lack of trained manpower. Some of these shortcomings can be overcome by machine learning-based approaches (Berardi et al., 2020; Dangal et al., 2022; Mathers et al., 2023) along with coupling with other processes (Lang, 2019; Surendran and Jaiswal, 2023). It is to noted that many of the land-based mitigation strategies presented here may overlap spatially (Beaury et al., 2024) and GIS modeling could help identify the best strategies given local conditions. Incorporating spatially explicit information on the contribution of land to the total carbon budget within the NDC accounting framework (Prusty et al., 2024) can enhance transparency, address negative externalities associated with climate-friendly new technologies (Blanco et al., 2023), and play a pivotal role in achieving the shared global goal of a net-zero world. Emerging pollutants like microplastics pose a significant challenge, as standardized protocols for analyzing soil and plant samples are yet to be established. Furthermore, the quantitative and qualitative impacts of microplastics on the terrestrial carbon cycle remain poorly understood.
Table 1
Table 1. Land use types and models applied in various studies across the world for different Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) types.
11 Discussion
A combination of policy measures, financial incentives, and community engagement is essential for increased adaptation of these land-based approaches. The implementation would need to be carried out through a mix of top down and bottom-up approaches relying upon both government and private corporation for the necessary policy and regulation, financing and investment, innovation and technology, implementation, monitoring and execution, scaling up, and public awareness and advocacy. Afforestation, often less commercially viable than using land for commodity crops, is typically led by governments for public benefit. However, linking such efforts with income-generating activities like ecotourism can attract non-governmental participation, even in initiatives with limited initial commercial appeal (Wunder, 1999). Some of the measures may need enactment of new laws, regulations, and policy support from government and their success at implementation stage is heavily dependent on the coordination among different sections within the government. For example, judicious and sustainable land repurposing for biofuel production while accounting for the impact of direct and indirect land use changes (Jaiswal et al., 2017) can blur the divide between agriculture-based and industry-based economies while integrating land-based climate mitigation strategies into the decarbonization of India’s heavily fossil-dependent energy sector (Li and Wang, 2019). Simultaneously, it can potentially support the mission of increasing farmers’ incomes (Silalertruksa et al., 2012) by incentivizing agricultural diversification and establishing markets for diversified crops – essential element, alongside yield improvement, to enhance farmers’ incomes and living standards. Achieving this requires robust coordination among the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare (MoA&FW), and potentially several other stakeholders, which, specially at the implementation stage, remains a significant challenge. The emerging carbon emission market, especially in the context of India, can be reconciled with the net-zero emissions goal by creating a market-driven approach and utilizing revenue to support projects like afforestation, soil carbon sequestration, land rejuvenation, renewable energies, and promotion of sustainable land use practices. As the use of carbon credits often involves MRV, carbon credits may also promote accountability. Compliance mechanism under the carbon credit trading scheme (CCTS) by the Indian government has recently been introduced to facilitate the achievement of India’s enhanced NDC (Bureau of Energy Efficiency, 2024). As many of the land-based strategies overlap, therefore, developing countries like India need to have flexibility in designing accounting framework for GHG such that appropriate policies can be chosen based on their consistency with the NDC (Prusty et al., 2024).
Overall, land-based measures include the reduction of GHG emissions and/or enhanced CO2 removal from the atmosphere compared to the baseline scenario. Typically, land-based measures are considered cheaper and easier to implement than purely technological intervention and cost of mitigation for India is estimated to be 50–100 $ ton−1 of CO2 (Roe et al., 2021). India’s NDC is supported by various government initiatives, such as National Afforestation Program (MoEFCC, 2019), National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture (Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, 2010), Amrit Dharohar scheme (MOEFCC, 2023a), Mangrove Initiative for Shoreline Habitats and Tangible Incomes (MISHTI; MOEFCC, 2023a), etc. India is also one of the largest contributors to the global voluntary carbon markets (VCMs; Nozaki, 2023). The efforts by both central & state governments, along with contributions from private corporations, have made India the only major country whose emissions pathways are consistent with carbon budget required to limit the global warming within 2°C (Vishwanathan et al., 2023). However, post-COVID-19 pandemic, the trend in GHG emissions has become more concerning. We conclude this paper by emphasizing that a wide range of land-based carbon offset measures can play a pivotal role in helping India achieve its pledge to become a net-zero country by 2070.
Author contributions
DJ: Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KS: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TJ: Data curation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. AS: Data curation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. AK: Data curation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. SS: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding for this project is from Keystone Foundation, Tamil Nadu, India.
Acknowledgments
Keystone Foundation and IIT Palakkad supported this work. We also acknowledge that we have used National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC) Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) data.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. We have used ChatGPT to improve the writing and phrasing sentences.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2025.1538816/full#supplementary-material
References
Alongi, D. M. (2014). Carbon cycling and storage in mangrove forests. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 6, 195–219. doi: 10.1146/annurev-marine-010213-135020
Ardö, J., and Olsson, L. (2003). Assessment of soil organic carbon in semi-arid Sudan using GIS and the CENTURY model. J. Arid Environ. 54, 633–651. doi: 10.1006/jare.2002.1105
Armstrong, A., Waldron, S., Whitaker, J., and Ostle, N. J. (2014). Wind farm and solar park effects on plant-soil carbon cycling: uncertain impacts of changes in ground-level microclimate. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 1699–1706. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12437
Athira, G., Bahurudeen, A., and Appari, S. (2019). Sustainable alternatives to carbon intensive paddy field burning in India: A framework for cleaner production in agriculture, energy, and construction industries. J. Clean. Prod. 236:117598. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.073
Ayog, Niti (2024). Greening and restoration of wastelands with agroforestry (G.R.O.W). Available at: https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-02/Grow%20Report%2020.02.2024.pdf (Accessed October 14, 2024).
Baho, D. L., Bundschuh, M., and Futter, M. N. (2021). Microplastics in terrestrial ecosystems: moving beyond the state of the art to minimize the risk of ecological surprise. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 3969–3986. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15724
Balasundram, S. K., Shamshiri, R. R., Sridhara, S., and Rizan, N. (2023). The role of digital agriculture in mitigating climate change and ensuring food security: an overview. Sustain. For. 15:5325. doi: 10.3390/su15065325
Beaury, E. M., Smith, J., and Levine, J. M. (2024). Global suitability and spatial overlap of land-based climate mitigation strategies. Glob. Chang. Biol. 30:e17515. doi: 10.1111/gcb.17515
Berardi, D., Brzostek, E., Blanc-Betes, E., Davison, B., DeLucia, E. H., Hartman, M. D., et al. (2020). 21st-century biogeochemical modeling: challenges for century-based models and where do we go from here? GCB Bioenergy 12, 774–788. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12730
Bhattacharyya, T., Ray, S. K., Pal, D. K., Chandran, P., Mandal, C., and Wani, S. P. (2009). Soil carbon stocks in India — issues and priorities. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 57, 461–468.
Blanco, G., Coninck, H.de, Agbemabiese, L., Mbaye Diagne, E. H., Anadon, L. D., Lim, Y. S., et al. (2023). “Innovation, Technology Development and Transfer,” in IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. P. R. Shukla, S. J, S. R, A. K. A, van D. R, M. D, et al. (Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press), 1641–1726.
Brown, S., and Leonard, P. (2004). Building carbon credits with biosolids recycling. Biocycle 45, 25–29.
Brummitt, C. D., Mathers, C. A., Keating, R. A., O’Leary, K., Easter, M., Friedl, M. A., et al. (2024). Solutions and insights for agricultural monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) from three consecutive issuances of soil carbon credits. J. Environ. Manag. 369:122284. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122284
Bureau of Energy Efficiency (2024). Detailed Procedure for Compliance Procedure under CCTS. Available at: https://beeindia.gov.in/sites/default/files/Detailed%20Procedure%20for%20Compliance%20Procedure%20under%20CCTS.pdf (Accessed January 19, 2025).
Butterbach-Bahl, K., Stange, F., Papen, H., and Li, C. (2001). Regional inventory of nitric oxide and nitrous oxide emissions for forest soils of Southeast Germany using the biogeochemical model PnET-N-DNDC. J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos. 106, 34155–34166. doi: 10.1029/2000JD000173
Cerri, C. E. P., Coleman, K., Jenkinson, D. S., Bernoux, M., Victoria, R., and Cerri, C. C. (2003). Modeling soil Carbon from Forest and pasture ecosystems of Amazon. Brazil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 67, 1879–1887. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2003.1879
Chaubey, O. P., and Bohre, P. (2014). Restoration of degraded lands through plantation forests. Glob. J. Sci. Front. Res. 14, 19–27.
Chen, R., and Twilley, R. R. (1999). A simulation model of organic matter and nutrient accumulation in mangrove wetland soils. Biogeochemistry 44, 93–118. doi: 10.1007/BF00993000
Chia, R. W., Lee, J.-Y., Lee, M., Lee, G.-S., and Jeong, C.-D. (2023). Role of soil microplastic pollution in climate change. Sci. Total Environ. 887:164112. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164112
Coleman, K., Jenkinson, D. S., Crocker, G. J., Grace, P. R., Klír, J., Körschens, M., et al. (1997). Simulating trends in soil organic carbon in long-term experiments using RothC-26.3. Geoderma 81, 29–44. doi: 10.1016/S0016-7061(97)00079-7
CPCB (2021). National Inventory of sewage treatment plants. CPCB. Available at: https://cpcb.nic.in/openpdffile.php?id=UmVwb3J0RmlsZXMvMTIyOF8xNjE1MTk2MzIyX21lZGlhcGhvdG85NTY0LnBkZg (Accessed October 23, 2024).
Dai, Z., Trettin, C. C., Frolking, S., and Birdsey, R. A. (2018). Mangrove carbon assessment tool: model validation and assessment of mangroves in southern USA and Mexico. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 208, 107–117. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2018.04.036
Dangal, S. R. S., Schwalm, C., Cavigelli, M. A., Gollany, H. T., Jin, V. L., and Sanderman, J. (2022). Improving soil carbon estimates by linking conceptual pools against measurable carbon fractions in the DAYCENT model version 4.5. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 14:e2021MS002622. doi: 10.1029/2021MS002622
Daou, A., Saliba, M., and Kallab, A. (2024). A review of the Miyawaki method. Soc. Sci. Res. [Preprint]. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4728239
De Souza, A. P., Burgess, S. J., Doran, L., Hansen, J., Manukyan, L., Maryn, N., et al. (2022). Soybean photosynthesis and crop yield are improved by accelerating recovery from photoprotection. Science 377, 851–854. doi: 10.1126/science.adc9831
De Souza Machado, A. A., Lau, C. W., Kloas, W., Bergmann, J., Bachelier, J. B., Faltin, E., et al. (2019). Microplastics can change soil properties and affect plant performance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 6044–6052. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01339
Del Grosso, S., Ojima, D., Parton, W., Mosier, A., Peterson, G., and Schimel, D. (2002). Simulated effects of dryland cropping intensification on soil organic matter and greenhouse gas exchanges using the DAYCENT ecosystem model. Environ. Pollut. 116, S75–S83. doi: 10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00260-3
Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (2010). National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture. Available at: https://nmsa.dac.gov.in (Accessed October 18, 2024).
Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (2023). Annual report 2022–23. Ministry of Agriculture & farmers’ welfare, government of India. Available at: https://agriwelfare.gov.in/Documents/annual_report_english_2022_23.pdf#page=291.07 (Accessed November 2, 2024).
Department of Land Resources and NRSC (2011). Wasteland atlas of India 2011. Hyderabad: NRSC, Indian Space Research Organisation.
Diels, J., Vanlauwe, B., Van Der Meersch, M. K., Sanginga, N., and Merckx, R. (2004). Long-term soil organic carbon dynamics in a subhumid tropical climate: 13C data in mixed C3/C4 cropping and modeling with ROTHC. Soil Biol. Biochem. 36, 1739–1750. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.04.031
Duarte, C. M., Losada, I. J., Hendriks, I. E., Mazarrasa, I., and Marbà, N. (2013). The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 961–968. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1970
Dwivedi, P., Wang, W., Hudiburg, T., Jaiswal, D., Parton, W., Long, S., et al. (2015). Cost of abating greenhouse gas emissions with cellulosic ethanol. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 2512–2522. doi: 10.1021/es5052588
Edrisi, S. A., and Abhilash, P. C. (2015). Sustainable bioenergy production from woody biomass: prospects and promises. J. Clean. Prod. 102, 558–559. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.031
Edrisi, S. A., Dubey, P. K., Chaturvedi, R. K., and Abhilash, P. C. (2022). Bioenergy crop production potential and carbon mitigation from marginal and degraded lands of India. Renew. Energy 192, 300–312. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.109
Field, J. L., Richard, T. L., Smithwick, E. A. H., Cai, H., Laser, M. S., LeBauer, D. S., et al. (2020). Robust paths to net greenhouse gas mitigation and negative emissions via advanced biofuels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 21968–21977. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1920877117
FSI (2021). India state of Forest report 2021. Dehradun, India: FSI. Available at: https://fsi.nic.in/isfr-2021/chapter-3.pdf (Accessed January 11, 2024).
Garsia, A., Moinet, A., Vazquez, C., Creamer, R. E., and Moinet, G. Y. K. (2023). The challenge of selecting an appropriate soil organic carbon simulation model: A comprehensive global review and validation assessment. Glob. Chang. Biol. 29, 5760–5774. doi: 10.1111/gcb.16896
GHG Platform India (2022). National Level Greenhouse gas Estimates. GHG Platform India. Available at: https://www.ghgplatform-india.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/GHGPI-Emissions-Estimates-2005-to-2018_Methodology-Note-Addendum-Captive-Power-Plants.pdf (Accessed October 16, 2024).
Gomez-Casanovas, N., Mwebaze, P., Khanna, M., Branham, B., Time, A., DeLucia, E. H., et al. (2023). Knowns, uncertainties, and challenges in agrivoltaics to sustainably intensify energy and food production. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 4:101518. doi: 10.1016/j.xcrp.2023.101518
Grace, P. R., Antle, J., Aggarwal, P. K., Ogle, S., Paustian, K., and Basso, B. (2012). Soil carbon sequestration and associated economic costs for farming systems of the indo-Gangetic plain: A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 146, 137–146. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.10.019
Gravuer, K., Gennet, S., and Throop, H. L. (2019). Organic amendment additions to rangelands: A meta-analysis of multiple ecosystem outcomes. Glob. Chang. Biol. 25, 1152–1170. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14535
Guo, Z., Li, P., Yang, X., Wang, Z., Lu, B., Chen, W., et al. (2022). Soil texture is an important factor determining how microplastics affect soil hydraulic characteristics. Environ. Int. 165:107293. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107293
Hanpattanakit, P., Kongsaenkaew, P., Pocksorn, A., Thanajaruwittayakorn, W., Detchairit, W., and Limsakul, A. (2022). Estimating carbon stock in biomass and soil of young eco-Forest in Urban City, Thailand. Chem. Eng. Trans. 97, 427–432. doi: 10.3303/CET2297072
He, Y., Jaiswal, D., Liang, X., Sun, C., and Long, S. P. (2022). Perennial biomass crops on marginal land improve both regional climate and agricultural productivity. GCB Bioenergy 14, 558–571. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12937
He, Y., Jaiswal, D., Long, S. P., Liang, X., and Matthews, M. L. (2024). Biomass yield potential on U.S. marginal land and its contribution to reach net-zero emission. GCB Bioenergy 16:e13128. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.13128
Hu, S., Niu, Z., Chen, Y., Li, L., and Zhang, H. (2017). Global wetlands: potential distribution, wetland loss, and status. Sci. Total Environ. 586, 319–327. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.001
Ichii, K., Hashimoto, H., White, M. A., Potter, C., Hutyra, L. R., Huete, A. R., et al. (2007). Constraining rooting depths in tropical rainforests using satellite data and ecosystem modeling for accurate simulation of gross primary production seasonality. Glob. Chang. Biol. 13, 67–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01277.x
ICLEI South Asia (2022). Guidelines for development of Miyawaki forests in India. ICLEI South Asia. Available at: https://southasia.iclei.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Guidelines-for-Miyawaki-Forest.pdf (Accessed January 11, 2024).
IEA (2024). Indian oil market - outlook to 2023. International energy agency. Available at: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/4a13289b-1e25-45c8-9faf-9db532eaed1c/IndianOilMarket-Outlookto2030.pdf (Accessed October 31, 2024).
Izaurralde, R. C., Williams, J. R., McGill, W. B., Rosenberg, N. J., and Jakas, M. C. Q. (2006). Simulating soil C dynamics with EPIC: model description and testing against long-term data. Ecol. Model. 192, 362–384. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.07.010
Jain, M., Singh, B., Srivastava, A. A. K., Malik, R. K., McDonald, A. J., and Lobell, D. B. (2017). Using satellite data to identify the causes of and potential solutions for yield gaps in India’s Wheat Belt. Environ. Res. Lett. 12:094011. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa8228
Jaiswal, D., De Souza, A. P., Larsen, S., LeBauer, D. S., Miguez, F. E., Sparovek, G., et al. (2017). Brazilian sugarcane ethanol as an expandable green alternative to crude oil use. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 788–792. doi: 10.1038/nclimate3410
James, K., Macreadie, P. I., Burdett, H. L., Davies, I., and Kamenos, N. A. (2024). It’s time to broaden what we consider a ‘blue carbon ecosystem.’. Glob. Chang. Biol. 30:e17261. doi: 10.1111/gcb.17261
Jenkinson, D. S., Harkness, D. D., Vance, E. D., Adams, D. E., and Harrison, A. F. (1992). Calculating net primary production and annual input of organic matter to soil from the amount and radiocarbon content of soil organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 24, 295–308. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(92)90189-5
Jha, G. K., Burman, R. R., Dubey, S. K., and Singh, G. (2011). Yield gap analysis of major oilseeds in India. J. Community Mobilization Sustain. Dev. 6, 209–216.
Kannankai, M. P., Alex, R. K., Muralidharan, V. V., Nazeerkhan, N. P., Radhakrishnan, A., and Devipriya, S. P. (2022). Urban mangrove ecosystems are under severe threat from microplastic pollution: a case study from Mangalavanam, Kerala. India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29, 80568–80580. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-21530-1
Ketzer, D., Schlyter, P., Weinberger, N., and Rösch, C. (2020). Driving and restraining forces for the implementation of the Agrophotovoltaics system technology – A system dynamics analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 270:110864. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110864
Kiese, R., Li, C., Hilbert, D. W., Papen, H., and Butterbach-Bahl, K. (2005). Regional application of PnET-N-DNDC for estimating the N 2 O source strength of tropical rainforests in the wet tropics of Australia. Glob. Chang. Biol. 11, 128–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00873.x
Kim, S., Kim, S., and Yoon, C.-Y. (2021). An efficient structure of an Agrophotovoltaic system in a temperate climate region. Agronomy 11:1584. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11081584
Kueh, R. J. H., Majid, N. M., Ahmed, O. H., and Gandaseca, S. (2016). Assessment of carbon stock in Chronosequence rehabilitated tropical Forest stands in Malaysia. J. For. Environ. Sci. 32, 302–310. doi: 10.7747/JFES.2016.32.3.302
Kuittinen, M., Zernicke, C., Slabik, S., and Hafner, A. (2023). How can carbon be stored in the built environment? A review of potential options. Archit. Sci. Rev. 66, 91–107. doi: 10.1080/00038628.2021.1896471
Kumar, B. M., and Aravindakshan, S. (2022). Carbon footprints of the Indian AFOLU (agriculture, forestry, and other land use) sector: a review. Carbon Footpr. 1:7. doi: 10.20517/cf.2022.04
Kumar, B. M., and Balasubramanian, D. (2024). Carbon stocks of forests and tree plantations along an elevational gradient in the Western Ghats: does plant diversity impact Forest carbon stocks? Anthr. Sci. 3, 63–80. doi: 10.1007/s44177-024-00071-x
Kumar, S., Meena, R. S., Lal, R., Singh Yadav, G., Mitran, T., Meena, B. L., et al. (2018). “Role of legumes in soil carbon sequestration” in Legumes for soil health and sustainable management. eds. R. S. Meena, A. Das, G. S. Yadav, and R. Lal (Singapore: Springer Singapore), 109–138.
Lal, R. (2004a). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304, 1623–1627. doi: 10.1126/science.1097396
Lal, R. (2004b). Soil carbon sequestration in India. Climate Change 65, 277–296. doi: 10.1023/B:CLIM.0000038202.46720.37
Lal, R., Henderlong, P., and Flowers, M. (1997). “Forages and row cropping effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen contents” in Management of carbon sequestration in soil, ed. B. A. Stewart (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press).
Lang, M. (2019). Yggdrasil: a Python package for integrating computational models across languages and scales. Silico Plants 1:diz001. doi: 10.1093/insilicoplants/diz001
Li, C., Frolking, S., Crocker, G. J., Grace, P. R., Klír, J., Körchens, M., et al. (1997). Simulating trends in soil organic carbon in long-term experiments using the DNDC model. Geoderma 81, 45–60. doi: 10.1016/S0016-7061(97)00080-3
Li, S., and Wang, Q. (2019). India’s dependence on foreign oil will exceed 90% around 2025 - the forecasting results based on two hybridized NMGM-ARIMA and NMGM-BP models. J. Clean. Prod. 232, 137–153. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.314
Long, S. P., Karp, A., Buckeridge, M., Davis, S., Jaiswal, D., Moore, P. H., et al. (2015). Feedstock for biofuels and bioenergy. in Bioenergy & Sustainability: Bridging the Gaps, 258–301. Available at: http://bioenfapesp.org/scopebioenergy/images/chapters/bioenergy_sustainability_scope.pdf
Macreadie, P. I., Costa, M. D. P., Atwood, T. B., Friess, D. A., Kelleway, J. J., Kennedy, H., et al. (2021). Blue carbon as a natural climate solution. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2, 826–839. doi: 10.1038/s43017-021-00224-1
Malerba, M. E., Friess, D. A., Peacock, M., Grinham, A., Taillardat, P., Rosentreter, J. A., et al. (2022). Methane and nitrous oxide emissions complicate the climate benefits of teal and blue carbon wetlands. One Earth 5, 1336–1341. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2022.11.003
Marcuta, L., Tindeche, C., Nuta, A. C., Nuta, F. M., and Marcuta, A. (2023). Study on the importance of using agrivoltaic systems to reduce the effects of climate change. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev 23, 573–580.
Mathers, C., Black, C. K., Segal, B. D., Gurung, R. B., Zhang, Y., Easter, M. J., et al. (2023). Validating DayCent-CR for cropland soil carbon offset reporting at a national scale. Geoderma 438:116647. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116647
Mathur, A., Sharma, J. V., Ashutosh, S., and Priyanka, (2021). Will India attain it’s forestry NDC target of achieving 2.5-3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent through additional forest cover and tree cover by 2030? The energy and resource institute. Available at: https://www.teriin.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/will-india-attain-forestry.pdf (Accessed October 16, 2024).
McElwee, P., Calvin, K., Campbell, D., Cherubini, F., Grassi, G., Korotkov, V., et al. (2020). The impact of interventions in the global land and Agri-food sectors on Nature’s contributions to people and the UN sustainable development goals. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 4691–4721. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15219
McGuire, A. D., Melillo, J. M., Kicklighter, D. W., and Joyce, L. A. (1995). Equilibrium responses of soil carbon to climate change: empirical and process-based estimates. J. Biogeogr. 22:785. doi: 10.2307/2845980
Minasny, B., Malone, B. P., McBratney, A. B., Angers, D. A., Arrouays, D., Chambers, A., et al. (2017). Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma 292, 59–86. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.01.002
Mishra, A., Thangaraj, R. A., and Mehta, P. S. (2021). Farm-to-fire analysis of Karanja biodiesel. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 15, 1737–1752. doi: 10.1002/bbb.2271
Miyawaki, A. (1975). Entwicklung der Unweltschutz-Pflanzungen und Ansaaten in Japan. in Sukuzessionsforschung. Bericht uber das Internationale Symposium der Internationalen Vereinigung fur Vegetationskunde, ed. R. Tüxen (Vaduz, Liechtenstein: J. Cramer), 237–254. Available at: https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1570291224782001664 (Accessed October 30, 2024).
MoEFCC (2019). National Afforestation Programme. Press Inf. Bur. Available at: https://pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1596332 (Accessed October 31, 2024).
MOEFCC (2023a). MISHTI scheme promotes development of 540 Sq. Kms mangroves across 11 states and 2 union territories. Available at: https://pib.gov.in/pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1914421 (Accessed October 23, 2024).
MOEFCC (2023b). Shri Bhupender Yadav leads Mangrove Plantation drive in Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu as part of the Mangrove Initiative for Shoreline Habitats and Tangible Incomes (MISHTI) scheme envisioned by the Prime Minister. Available at: https://pib.gov.in/pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1939369 (Accessed November 1, 2024).
MoEFCC (2024). Ramsar sites in India. MoEFCC, Government of India. Available at: https://www.moef.gov.in/uploads/2024/03/85-Ramsar-sites-of-India-14-08-2024.pdf (Accessed October 23, 2024).
MoPNG (2018). National policy on biofuel 2018. MoPNG, Government of India. Available at: https://mopng.gov.in/files/uploads/NATIONAL_POLICY_ON_BIOFUELS-2018.pdf (Accessed October 31, 2024).
MoRD and NRSC (2019). Wasteland atlas of India 2019. Hyderabad: NRSC, Indian Space Research Organisation.
Nair, P. K. R., Mohan Kumar, B., and Nair, V. D. (2009). Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 172, 10–23. doi: 10.1002/jpln.200800030
Nouni, M. R., Jha, P., Sarkhel, R., Banerjee, C., Tripathi, A. K., and Manna, J. (2021). Alternative fuels for decarbonisation of road transport sector in India: options, present status, opportunities, and challenges. Fuel 305:121583. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2021.121583
Nozaki, Y. (2023). Rise of carbon farming in India. Tokyo, Japan: Mitsui & Co. Global Strategic Studies Institute.
Padbhushan, R., Kumar, U., Sharma, S., Rana, D. S., Kumar, R., Kohli, A., et al. (2022). Impact of land-use changes on soil properties and carbon pools in India: A Meta-analysis. Front. Environ. Sci. 9:794866. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2021.794866
Parton, W. J., Anderson, D. W., Cole, C. V., and Stewart, J. W. B. (1983). Simulation of soil organic matter formation and mineralization in semiarid ecosystems. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 23, 533–550.
Parton, W. J., Ojima, D. S., Cole, C. V., and Schimel, D. S. (1994). A general model for soil organic matter dynamics: sensitivity to litter chemistry, texture and management. Quant. Model. Soil Form. Process. 39, 147–167. doi: 10.2136/sssaspecpub39.c9
Parton, W. J., Scurlock, J. M. O., Ojima, D. S., Gilmanov, T. G., Scholes, R. J., Schimel, D. S., et al. (1993). Observations and modeling of biomass and soil organic matter dynamics for the grassland biome worldwide. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 7, 785–809. doi: 10.1029/93GB02042
Peng, X., Jiang, Y., Chen, Z., Osman, A. I., Farghali, M., Rooney, D. W., et al. (2023). Recycling municipal, agricultural and industrial waste into energy, fertilizers, food and construction materials, and economic feasibility: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 21, 765–801. doi: 10.1007/s10311-022-01551-5
Pepper, D. A., Del Grosso, S. J., McMurtrie, R. E., and Parton, W. J. (2005). Simulated carbon sink response of shortgrass steppe, tallgrass prairie and forest ecosystems to rising [CO2], temperature and nitrogen input. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 19:2004GB002226. doi: 10.1029/2004GB002226
Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A., and Green, R. E. (2011). Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333, 1289–1291. doi: 10.1126/science.1208742
Poddar, S. (2021). Miyawaki technique of afforestation. Krishi Sci.-EMagazine Agric. Sci 2, 1–3. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5893933
Prajapati, M., Thesia, D., Thesia, V., Rakholia, R., Tailor, J., Patel, A., et al. (2024). Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS): A critical review towards carbon neutrality in India. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 10:100770. doi: 10.1016/j.cscee.2024.100770
Prusty, D., Garg, A., Solanki, U., and Maheshwari, J. (2024). An accounting framework for implementing India’s NDCs and reporting the capacity building needs in the context of the Paris rulebook. Clim. Dev. 16, 514–525. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2023.2247388
Ravindranath, N. H., and Somashekhar, B. S. (1995). Potential and economics of forestry options for carbon sequestration in India. Biomass Bioenergy 8, 323–336. doi: 10.1016/0961-9534(95)00025-9
Ren, Z., Gui, X., Xu, X., Zhao, L., Qiu, H., and Cao, X. (2021). Microplastics in the soil-groundwater environment: aging, migration, and co-transport of contaminants – A critical review. J. Hazard. Mater. 419:126455. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126455
Richardson, J. L., and Vepraskas, M. J. (2000). Wetland soils: Genesis, hydrology, landscapes, and classification. Second Edn. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.
Rillig, M. C., Hoffmann, M., Lehmann, A., Liang, Y., Lück, M., and Augustin, J. (2021). Microplastic fibers affect dynamics and intensity of CO2 and N2O fluxes from soil differently. Microplastics Nanoplastics 1:3. doi: 10.1186/s43591-021-00004-0
Rimal, N. S., and Kumar, S. (2018). Yield gap analysis of major pulses in India. J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci. 33–34, 213–219. doi: 10.3126/jiaas.v33i0.20707
Robertson, G. P., Hamilton, S. K., Paustian, K., and Smith, P. (2022). Land-based climate solutions for the United States. Glob. Chang. Biol. 28, 4912–4919. doi: 10.1111/gcb.16267
Rodrigues, L., Hardy, B., Huyghebeart, B., Fohrafellner, J., Fornara, D., Barančíková, G., et al. (2021). Achievable agricultural soil carbon sequestration across Europe from country-specific estimates. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 6363–6380. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15897
Roe, S., Streck, C., Beach, R., Busch, J., Chapman, M., Daioglou, V., et al. (2021). Land-based measures to mitigate climate change: potential and feasibility by country. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 6025–6058. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15873
Roy, T., and George, K. J. (2020). “Precision farming: A step towards sustainable, climate-smart agriculture” in Global climate change: Resilient and smart agriculture. eds. V. Venkatramanan, S. Shah, and R. Prasad (Singapore: Springer Singapore), 199–220.
Running, S. W., and Gower, S. T. (1991). FOREST-BGC, A general model of forest ecosystem processes for regional applications. II. Dynamic carbon allocation and nitrogen budgets. Tree Physiol. 9, 147–160. doi: 10.1093/treephys/9.1-2.147
Sandip, R., Sharma, P., and Modi, N. R. (2022). Development of tree plantation through Miyawaki method at Sabaramati riverfront development cooporation limited - A research. Int. Assoc. Biol. Comput. Dig. 1, 26–38. doi: 10.56588/iabcd.v1i1.11
Sanford, R. L., Parton, W. J., Ojima, D. S., and Lodge, D. J. (1991). Hurricane effects on soil organic matter dynamics and Forest production in the Luquillo experimental Forest, Puerto Rico: results of simulation modeling. Biotropica 23:364. doi: 10.2307/2388253
Schirone, B., Salis, A., and Vessella, F. (2011). Effectiveness of the Miyawaki method in Mediterranean forest restoration programs. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 7, 81–92. doi: 10.1007/s11355-010-0117-0
Seddon, N., Smith, A., Smith, P., Key, I., Chausson, A., Girardin, C., et al. (2021). Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 1518–1546. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15513
Senapati, N., Semenov, M. A., Halford, N. G., Hawkesford, M. J., Asseng, S., Cooper, M., et al. (2022). Global wheat production could benefit from closing the genetic yield gap. Nat. Food 3, 532–541. doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00540-9
Sengupta, S., Adams, P. J., Deetjen, T. A., Kamboj, P., D’Souza, S., Tongia, R., et al. (2022). Subnational implications from climate and air pollution policies in India’s electricity sector. Science 378:eabh1484. doi: 10.1126/science.abh1484
Silalertruksa, T., Gheewala, S. H., Hünecke, K., and Fritsche, U. R. (2012). Biofuels and employment effects: implications for socio-economic development in Thailand. Biomass Bioenergy 46, 409–418. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.07.019
Silverstein, M. R., Segrè, D., and Bhatnagar, J. M. (2023). Environmental microbiome engineering for the mitigation of climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 29, 2050–2066. doi: 10.1111/gcb.16609
Singh, S., Chakma, S., Alawa, B., Kalyanasundaram, M., and Diwan, V. (2023). Identification, characterization, and implications of microplastics in soil – A case study of Bhopal, Central India. J. Hazard. Mater. Adv. 9:100225. doi: 10.1016/j.hazadv.2022.100225
Singh, A., Kumar, R., Lakhchaura, P., Pandey, K., Ghosh, S., and Yadav, S. (2023). Estimation of carbon stock in mangrove ecosystem. Dehradun, India: FSI.
Singh, R. S., Singh, K. K., Bhengra, A. H., Singh, S. M., Prasad, G., Singh, P., et al. (2021). Potential yield and yield gap analysis of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) using the DSSAT-CANEGRO model in different districts of Uttar Pradesh, India. J. Agrometeorol. 23, 147–153. doi: 10.54386/jam.v23i2.60
Singh, S. N., Verma, A., and Tyagi, L. (2003). Investigating options for attenuating methane emission from Indian rice fields. Environ. Int. 29, 547–553. doi: 10.1016/S0160-4120(03)00010-2
Smith, W. N., Desjardins, R. L., and Pattey, E. (2000). The net flux of carbon from agricultural soils in Canada 1970–2010. Glob. Chang. Biol. 6, 557–568. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00340.x
Smith, P., Haberl, H., Popp, A., Erb, K., Lauk, C., Harper, R., et al. (2013). How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals? Glob. Chang. Biol. 19, 2285–2302. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12160
Soares, J. R., Souza, B. R., Mazzetto, A. M., Galdos, M. V., Chadwick, D. R., Campbell, E. E., et al. (2023). Mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions in grazing systems through nitrification inhibitors: a meta-analysis. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 125, 359–377. doi: 10.1007/s10705-022-10256-8
Somerville, C., Youngs, H., Taylor, C., Davis, S. C., and Long, S. P. (2010). Feedstocks for lignocellulosic biofuels. Science 329, 790–792. doi: 10.1126/science.1189268
Soterroni, A. C., Império, M., Scarabello, M. C., Seddon, N., Obersteiner, M., Rochedo, P. R. R., et al. (2023). Nature-based solutions are critical for putting Brazil on track towards net-zero emissions by 2050. Glob. Chang. Biol. 29, 7085–7101. doi: 10.1111/gcb.16984
Space Applications Centre (2013). National Wetland Atlas. Space applications Centre. Available at: https://indianwetlands.in/wp-content/uploads/library/national-ramsarsite-india.pdf#page=21.63 (Accessed November 1, 2024).
Space Applications Centre (2018). Desertification Land Degradation Atlas of India. Available at: https://www.sac.gov.in/SACSITE/Desertification_Atlas_2016_SAC_ISRO.pdf (Accessed October 14, 2024).
Sturchio, M. A., and Knapp, A. K. (2023). Ecovoltaic principles for a more sustainable, ecologically informed solar energy future. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7, 1746–1749. doi: 10.1038/s41559-023-02174-x
Sun, Y., Duan, C., Cao, N., Li, X., Li, X., Chen, Y., et al. (2022). Effects of microplastics on soil microbiome: the impacts of polymer type, shape, and concentration. Sci. Total Environ. 806:150516. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150516
Surendran, S., and Jaiswal, D. (2023). “A brief review of tools to promote transdisciplinary collaboration for addressing climate change challenges in agriculture by model coupling” in Digital ecosystem for innovation in agriculture. eds. S. Chaudhary, C. M. Biradar, S. Divakaran, and M. S. Raval (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 3–33.
Swarup, A., Manna, M. C., and Singh, G. B. (1999). “Impact of land use and management practices on organic carbon dynamics in soils of India” in Global climate change and tropical ecosystems. eds. R. Lal, J. M. Kimble, and B. A. Stewart (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), 261–281.
Tezel, U., Tandukar, M., and Pavlostathis, S. G. (2011). Anaerobic biotreatment of municipal sewage sludge. Compr. Biotechnol. 6, 447–461. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-088504-9.00329-9
Thakur, G. (2023). Exigency of an overhaul in Forest law: how the Forest (conservation) amendment act, 2023, has transformed India’s Forest regime. NUJS Law Rev 16, 288–321.
Tian, H., Banger, K., Bo, T., and Dadhwal, V. K. (2014). History of land use in India during 1880–2010: large-scale land transformations reconstructed from satellite data and historical archives. Glob. Planet. Chang. 121, 78–88. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2014.07.005
Torri, S. I., Corrêa, R. S., and Renella, G. (2014). Soil carbon sequestration resulting from biosolids application. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2014, 1–9. doi: 10.1155/2014/821768
UN-DESA (2024). World population prospects 2024. U. N. Available at: https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/356 (Accessed October 22, 2024).
Van De Ven, D.-J., Capellan-Peréz, I., Arto, I., Cazcarro, I., De Castro, C., Patel, P., et al. (2021). The potential land requirements and related land use change emissions of solar energy. Sci. Rep. 11:2907. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82042-5
Vargas, R., Allen, M. F., and Allen, E. B. (2008). Biomass and carbon accumulation in a fire chronosequence of a seasonally dry tropical forest. Glob. Chang. Biol. 14, 109–124. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01462.x
Vats, G., and Mathur, R. (2022). A net-zero emissions energy system in India by 2050: an exploration. J. Clean. Prod. 352:131417. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131417
Villa, Y. B., and Ryals, R. (2021). Soil carbon response to long-term biosolids application. J. Environ. Qual. 50, 1084–1096. doi: 10.1002/jeq2.20270
Vishwanathan, S. S., Fragkos, P., Fragkiadakis, K., and Garg, A. (2023). Assessing enhanced NDC and climate compatible development pathways for India. Energ. Strat. Rev. 49:101152. doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2023.101152
Were, D., Kansiime, F., Fetahi, T., Cooper, A., and Jjuuko, C. (2019). Carbon sequestration by wetlands: A critical review of enhancement measures for climate change mitigation. Earth Syst. Environ. 3, 327–340. doi: 10.1007/s41748-019-00094-0
Werner, C., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Haas, E., Hickler, T., and Kiese, R. (2007). A global inventory of N 2 O emissions from tropical rainforest soils using a detailed biogeochemical model. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 21:2006GB002909. doi: 10.1029/2006GB002909
White, M. A., Thornton, P. E., Running, S. W., and Nemani, R. R. (2000). Parameterization and sensitivity analysis of the BIOME–BGC terrestrial ecosystem model: net primary production controls. Earth Interact. 4, 1–85. doi: 10.1175/1087-3562(2000)004<0003:PASAOT>2.0.CO;2
Wiesmeier, M., Urbanski, L., Hobley, E., Lang, B., Von Lützow, M., Marin-Spiotta, E., et al. (2019). Soil organic carbon storage as a key function of soils - A review of drivers and indicators at various scales. Geoderma 333, 149–162. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.07.026
Williams, J. R. (1990). The erosion-productivity impact calculator (EPIC) model: a case history. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 329, 421–428. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1990.0184
Wunder, S. (1999). Promoting forest conservation through ecotourism income? A case study from the Ecuadorian Amazon region. Bogor Barat, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). doi: 10.17528/cifor/000538
Xiong, D. (2024). Perspectives of improving rice photosynthesis for higher grain yield. Crop Environ. 3, 123–137. doi: 10.1016/j.crope.2024.04.001
Xu, X., Liu, W., and Kiely, G. (2011). Modeling the change in soil organic carbon of grassland in response to climate change: effects of measured versus modelled carbon pools for initializing the Rothamsted carbon model. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 140, 372–381. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2010.12.018
Zhang, Y., Li, C., Trettin, C. C., Li, H., and Sun, G. (2002). An integrated model of soil, hydrology, and vegetation for carbon dynamics in wetland ecosystems. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 16, 9-1-9–17. doi: 10.1029/2001GB001838
Keywords: net zero emission, nature based solution, land based solution, afforestation, soil organic carbon, biosolids, bioenergy, climate change
Citation: Jaiswal D, Siddique KM, Jayalekshmi TR, Sajitha AS, Kushwaha A and Surendran S (2025) Land-based climate mitigation strategies for achieving net zero emissions in India. Front. Clim. 7:1538816. doi: 10.3389/fclim.2025.1538816
Edited by:
Maria Josefina Figueroa, Copenhagen Business School, DenmarkReviewed by:
Elliott Thomas Campbell, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, United StatesCopyright © 2025 Jaiswal, Siddique, Jayalekshmi, Sajitha, Kushwaha and Surendran. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Deepak Jaiswal, ZGpAaWl0cGtkLmFjLmlu