To limit warming to well below 2°C, most scenario projections rely on greenhouse gas removal technologies (GGRTs); one such GGRT uses soil carbon sequestration (SCS) in agricultural land. In addition to their role in mitigating climate change, SCS practices play a role in delivering agroecosystem resilience, climate change adaptability and food security. Environmental heterogeneity and differences in agricultural practices challenge the practical implementation of SCS, and our analysis addresses the associated knowledge gap. Previous assessments have focused on global potentials, but there is a need among policymakers to operationalise SCS. Here, we assess a range of practices already proposed to deliver SCS, and distil these into a subset of specific measures. We provide a multidisciplinary summary of the barriers and potential incentives towards practical implementation of these measures. First, we identify specific practices with potential for both a positive impact on SCS at farm level and an uptake rate compatible with global impact. These focus on: (a) optimising crop primary productivity (e.g. nutrient optimisation, pH management, irrigation); (b) reducing soil disturbance and managing soil physical properties (e.g. improved rotations, minimum till); (c) minimising deliberate removal of C or lateral transport via erosion processes (e.g. support measures, bare fallow reduction); (d) addition of C produced outside the system (e.g. organic manure amendments, biochar addition); (e) provision of additional C inputs within the cropping system (e.g. agroforestry, cover cropping). We then consider economic and non‐cost barriers and incentives for land managers implementing these measures, along with the potential externalised impacts of implementation. This offers a framework and reference point for holistic assessment of the impacts of SCS. Finally, we summarise and discuss the ability of extant scientific approaches to quantify the technical potential and externalities of SCS measures, and the barriers and incentives to their implementation in global agricultural systems.

No abstract

Urban agriculture can contribute to food security, food system resilience and sustainability at the city level. While studies have examined urban agricultural productivity, we lack systemic knowledge of how agricultural productivity of urban systems compares to conventional agriculture and how productivity varies for different urban spaces (e.g., allotments vs. rooftops vs. indoor farming) and growing systems (e.g., hydroponics vs. soil‐based agriculture). Here, we present a global meta‐analysis that seeks to quantify crop yields of urban agriculture for a broad range of crops and explore differences in yields for distinct urban spaces and growing systems. We found 200 studies reporting urban crop yields, from which 2,062 observations were extracted. Lettuces and chicories were the most studied urban grown crops. We observed high agronomic suitability of urban areas, with urban agricultural yields on par with or greater than global average conventional agricultural yields. “Cucumbers and gherkins” was the category of crops for which differences in yields between urban and conventional agriculture were the greatest (17 kg m−2 cycle−1 vs. 3.8 kg m−2 cycle−1). Some urban spaces and growing systems also had a significant effect on specific crop yields (e.g., tomato yields in hydroponic systems were significantly greater than tomato yields in soil‐based systems). This analysis provides a more robust, globally relevant evidence base on the productivity of urban agriculture that can be used in future research and practice relating to urban agriculture, especially in scaling‐up studies aiming to estimate the self‐sufficiency of cities and towns and their potential to meet local food demand.