The effectiveness of agricultural carbon dioxide removal using the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model

Abstract. A growing body of evidence suggests that to achieve the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will likely be required in addition to massive carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reductions. Nature-based CDR, which includes a range of strategies to enhance carbon storage in natural and managed land reservoirs, such as agricultural lands, could play an important role in efforts to limit climate warming to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. However, there remains a substantial knowledge gap on how the climate will respond to CDR when the removed carbon remains in the active carbon cycle. This study uses an intermediate-complexity climate model to perform simulations of agricultural CDR via soil carbon sequestration at rates reflecting realistic costs under three future emissions scenarios. We found that plausible levels of agricultural CDR reduced CO2 concentration by 5–19 ppm and global surface air temperature by 0.02–0.10 °C by the end of the century. This temperature decrease was non-linear with respect to cumulative removals, as the removed carbon remained part of the active carbon cycle, lessening the climate benefit than if it was removed permanently. In low-emissions scenarios, a given amount of CDR was found to be more effective at reducing surface air temperature and less effective at reducing atmospheric CO2, compared to high-emissions scenarios. This was due to a proportionally larger impact of CDR on radiative balance at lower atmospheric CO2 and reduced weakening of the carbon sinks at lower atmospheric CO2. CDR was substantially more effective when implemented at a higher rate, as CDR results in a proportionally larger difference in a climate with lower cumulative air fraction of CO2. Land and soil carbon responses were driven by the scenario-dependent balances between the impacts of CDR on primary productivity from CO2 fertilization and the impacts on soil respiration from increased soil carbon availability and global temperatures.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Biogeosciences
Published
2025-04-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1969-2025
Primary Topic
Science and Climate Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The effectiveness of agricultural carbon dioxide removal using the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model

H. Damon Matthews, Rebecca C. Evans
Biogeosciences
Science and Climate Studies
article

The effectiveness of agricultural carbon dioxide removal using the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model

H. Damon Matthews, Rebecca C. Evans
article en

Abstract

Abstract. A growing body of evidence suggests that to achieve the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will likely be required in addition to massive carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reductions. Nature-based CDR, which includes a range of strategies to enhance carbon storage in natural and managed land reservoirs, such as agricultural lands, could play an important role in efforts to limit climate warming to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. However, there remains a substantial knowledge gap on how the climate will respond to CDR when the removed carbon remains in the active carbon cycle. This study uses an intermediate-complexity climate model to perform simulations of agricultural CDR via soil carbon sequestration at rates reflecting realistic costs under three future emissions scenarios. We found that plausible levels of agricultural CDR reduced CO2 concentration by 5–19 ppm and global surface air temperature by 0.02–0.10 °C by the end of the century. This temperature decrease was non-linear with respect to cumulative removals, as the removed carbon remained part of the active carbon cycle, lessening the climate benefit than if it was removed permanently. In low-emissions scenarios, a given amount of CDR was found to be more effective at reducing surface air temperature and less effective at reducing atmospheric CO2, compared to high-emissions scenarios. This was due to a proportionally larger impact of CDR on radiative balance at lower atmospheric CO2 and reduced weakening of the carbon sinks at lower atmospheric CO2. CDR was substantially more effective when implemented at a higher rate, as CDR results in a proportionally larger difference in a climate with lower cumulative air fraction of CO2. Land and soil carbon responses were driven by the scenario-dependent balances between the impacts of CDR on primary productivity from CO2 fertilization and the impacts on soil respiration from increased soil carbon availability and global temperatures.

BiogeosciencesVol. 22(8)
Concordia University (CA)
Microsoft, Concordia University, Mitacs, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Alliance de recherche numérique du Canada
Openalex Percentile: Top 91%
Science and Climate Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.