Advancing climate mitigation in Indian agriculture: a critical review of soil-, water-, and nutrient-based interventions

Abstract

As global agriculture faces the dual challenge of increasing food demand and mitigating climate change, India has emerged as a critical focal point for developing resilient management practices. Reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under various production systems without affecting productivity is one of the important challenges in addressing global warming. The study evaluates the alignment of Indian agricultural practices with global initiatives, such as the “4 per 1,000” initiative launched at COP21, which aims to enhance soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration through sustainable management. Environmentally and economically efficient management practices were identified, such as soil-, water-, and nutrient-based technologies that have various benefits of mitigation by removing, decreasing, or replacing the released atmospheric CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O. The adoption of recommended management practices promotes climate-resilient agriculture by conserving soil and water, enhancing the amount of soil organic carbon, and mitigating GHG emissions from agricultural fields.

1 Introduction

Climate change presents a significant challenge to global food security, with developing nations like India being particularly vulnerable. In these regions, agricultural productivity and natural resource stability are increasingly compromised by erratic climatic patterns. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the main reasons for global warming and abrupt climate changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports a global temperature increase of 0.74 °C over the last century, with projections estimating a further rise of 1.8 °C–4.0 °C by 2100. In comparison, India has experienced a warming rate of 0.42 °C, which, while lower than the global average, poses severe threat to the nation’s food security and natural resource stability. Centrally, CO₂ remains the primary driver of this warming, contributing 76% to the global GHG effect. While India’s temperature increase rate is approximately 0.42 °C over the last century, this reflects a broader global trend of warming that has seen temperatures rise by 0.74 °C globally, necessitating a coordinated international response in agricultural mitigation (1). However, GHG emissions are increased every year due to the huge pressure on natural resources to satisfy the needs of the increasing population (2). The concentration of CO₂ reached 413.2 ppm in 2020 and is 149% of the pre-industrial level (1970) when human activities started disrupting earth’s natural equilibrium. Methane and nitrous oxide increased by 262% and 123%, respectively (Table 1). The economic slowdown from COVID-19 did not have any discernible impact on the atmospheric levels of GHGs and their growth rates, although there was a temporary decline in new emissions (3).

As per India’s second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the total GHG emission was 1,772 million tonnes (Mt) of CO₂-equivalent (MtCO₂-eq) in 2007 (4). IPCC estimated that by 2100, the CO₂ concentration will have increased from 368 μmol/mol to between 540 and 970 μmol/mol, depending on the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (5). The GHG emission sectors are electricity generation, transport, agriculture, industries (particularly iron, steel, and cement), buildings, fugitive emissions, and waste in the country. Agriculture is the second largest sector (15%) contributing to global emissions of GHGs after the energy sector (63%) (6). Approximately 20% of GHG emissions is contributed by climate-smart agriculture in India (7). In India, during the last 50 years, CO₂ emission increased substantially from 111.45 to 2,441.8 Mt, with annual increment rate that touched a maximum of 10.31% during 2012 but which eventually declined to7.01% in 2020. As per recent report, the GHG level is 2,441.8 MtCO_2-eq in 2020, with an increase of 67% from 2008 (8) (Figure 1).

Figure 1

8).

Improved farming technologies/management practices are critical inputs for climate change adaptation. These technologies have various benefits for mitigation by removing, decreasing, or replacing the released atmospheric CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O (9). In India, for climate change adaptation, soil, water, and nutrient management are essential factors. GHG emissions from farming lands can be reduced by various improved technologies like conservation agriculture through no tillage, zero/reduced tillage, crop diversification, crop rotation, cover cropping, mulching, green manuring, agroforestry, planting of bioenergy plants in degraded lands, controlled release fertilizers (CRF)/slow release fertilizers (SRF), customized fertilizer application, integrated nutrient management (INM), organic manure application, water application through micro-irrigations like drip irrigation, fertigation, and sensor-based micro-irrigation.

1.1 Causes

In India, the major GHG emission sectors are electricity production, road transportation, manufacturing/construction, agriculture, industrial processes, other fuel combustion, building, fugitive emissions, and waste, which contribute 37%, 9%, 17%, 21%, 4%, 4%, 3%, 2%, and 3% respectively (Figure 2). As far as GHG emissions related to food consumption are concerned, CO₂ is the most important GHG, followed by CH₄ and N₂O (10). Carbon emission occurs during various stages of the life cycle of food products. The main sources contributing to the emission of GHGs in India are industries, agriculture, and inefficient waste management, with a total emission of 334 Mt CO₂-eq (11, 12).

Figure 2

CO₂ can be emitted from several sources. Every year, more than 600 Mt of crop residues are produced; out of these, ~16% are burned in situ in the farm. From these burning residues, ~40% comes from rice and ~22% from wheat. It leads to GHG emissions and loss of 1.5 Mt of nutrients annually (13). Tillage is one of the main sources of GHG emissions by increasing the O₂ supply and exposing the surface area of organic material stimulating organic matter decomposition. Temperature hastens the oxidation of organic carbon, releasing large amounts of CO₂ to the atmosphere (14). The deep wells powered by electricity are the largest source of CO₂ emissions at 38 million Mt, which accounts for more than 5% of the total GHG emissions in 2000 (1,559.1 million Mt CO₂-e) (15), and it is estimated to be 87% in 2050. The release of various GHGs caused a rise in atmospheric CO₂, which ultimately leads to extreme climatic events like floods, droughts, irregular rainfall patterns, cyclones, and frost that can hamper the country’s economic growth (16). Negative impacts of the climate change continue to be a major threat to rural livelihood in underdeveloped and developing countries (17). Submerged rice soils are the biggest contributor to GHG emissions of mostly CH₄ and N₂O and responsible for 20% of the world’s GHG emissions (18). Organic material decomposition under anaerobic conditions (flooded rice) emits CH_4. The use of nitrogenous fertilizers is attributed to GHG emissions. These N fertilizers are susceptible to loss through leaching, volatilization, immobilization, and denitrification, which together contribute to 60%. As per the IPCC assessment, the global CH₄ emission rate from rice fields was at a range of 20 to 100 Tg year^-1, with 5%–20% of the total emissions coming from all anthropogenic sources. Nitrogen breakdown in livestock manure and urine also emit N₂O, which contributed to 5% of N₂O emissions (18).

Agricultural soils are responsible for 66% of the total gross anthropogenic N₂O emissions, which is 4.1 Tg N₂O–N year⁻¹ (19). Globally, rice fields contribute almost 11% of N₂O emissions (20). In India, direct and indirect N₂O emissions from agricultural soils were estimated to be 186.4 thousand tonnes (55.3 Mt CO₂-e equivalent) and 30.6 thousand tonnes (5.8 Mt CO₂-e equivalent), respectively (6). The excessive and improper use of synthetic fertilizers also contributes to GHG emissions. According to IPCC 2014, the projected temperature of the country has increased by 0.7 °C–2.0 °C and 3.3 °C–4.8 °C in 2030 and 2080, respectively. The increased temperature due to global warming resulted in the melting of snow, thus leading to sea level rise and changes in rainfall patterns. By 2050, the estimated global sea level rise is between 0.17 and 0.41 m (21). Agricultural productivity depends on the effects of climate change. In wheat, production will decline by 4 to 5 Mt for every 1 °C increase in atmospheric temperature (22). In rice, yield will decline by 10% for every 1 °C increase in temperature during the growth period (23).

2 Government of India’s target of mitigation and source of GHGs

Worldwide, climate change has become a serious concern; for the same, many mitigation measures are being taken up by developing countries. Sequestration of atmospheric CO₂ is the chief solution to deal with global warming issues through afforestation and bioenergy, combined with carbon capture and storage, direct air capture, and enhanced SOC content (24). A pivotal international framework is the “4 per 1,000” initiative launched at COP21, which promotes soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration through practices such as conservation agriculture system intensification (CASI) and landscape management. India’s commitment to this and the Paris Climate Agreement is reflected in the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), which utilizes eight specific missions to address sectoral vulnerabilities. India is also committed to UNFCCC and the Paris Climate Change Agreement as our Honorable Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, recognizes the contribution to the field of environmental protection (25). Several Indian institutes are also involved in SOC stock estimation and monitoring in various categories of land. Taking these actions into consideration, India is recognized for working progressively toward achieving its voluntary climate change mitigation goals in the Emission Gap Report 2014 published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

The National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) was launched by the Indian government, which comprises eight missions to tackle climate change on a sector-by-sector basis. A reduction in GHG emissions of 7.6% per year from 2020 to 2030 may help achieve the goal of reducing global temperature. The National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) was implemented in 2010 under NAPCC to promote the judicious management of available resources, and this was one of the eight missions under NAPCC. Furthermore, to mitigate extreme climate actions, Green India Mission (GIM) was launched by the Government of India (GOI) in 2014 under the umbrella of NAPCC, with the primary objective of protecting, restoring, and enhancing India’s diminishing forest covers, thereby reducing the deleterious effects of climate change. To protect soil health, the GOI launched the soil health card (SHC) scheme and also introduced neem-coated urea (NCU) to minimize the excess addition of urea fertilizers. To encourage the farmers with more income benefit and ecosystem protection, programs such as the National Project on Organic Farming (NPOF) and the National Agroforestry Policy (NAP) were introduced in 2004 and 2014, respectively. These policies aimed to achieve the key objective of supplying plant nutrients in the form of organic amendments and carbon (C) through leaf fall by tree plantations near bund sides.

India, under the Kyoto protocol, targeted to reduce the GHG emissions by 10%–15% by 2020 and the emission intensity of its economy by 33%–35% relative to 2005 levels by the year 2030. India believes that climate finance, technology transfer, and capacity building are the key measures needed to achieve the 1.5°C pledge under the Paris Climate Accord. India has outlined a plan to increase the forest cover so as to create a cumulative carbon sink of 2,500–3,000 MtCO₂-eq by 2030, which is roughly on par with its total emissions from a single year (26, 27).

3 Technologies for climate change adaptation

Enhanced agriculture technologies and management practices can mitigate the GHG cost effectively. To deal with climate change effectively, ICAR has launched the National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture; presently National Innovations in Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA) project focuses on the development of location-specific technologies for increasing the resilience of 151 climatically vulnerable districts under Technology Demonstration Component (2). GHG emissions in agriculture can be mitigated through sequestering C into the soil and reducing CH₄ and N₂O emission through changes in land management (28).

CO₂ emissions can be diminished by reducing residue burning and using energy more efficiently. Improved N fertilizer use efficiency can also reduce N₂O emissions. Many adaptation options are available at the management level to decrease the effects of climate change on crop production, including zero tillage, retaining crop residues, extending fallows, increasing the diversity of production, altering the amounts and timing of external inputs (fertilizers, water), as well as agronomic management strategies (e.g., altering planting density, row spacing, and planting time; introducing new germplasms resistant to heat or drought stress). Shifting of water management from continuous flooding to alternate flooding or application of urea plus FYM instead of urea alone will reduce the global warming potential (GWP) by 15% and 29%, respectively, while feeding rice straw to cattle and supplying N through urea will reduce it by 41% compared to the current practice of burning rice straw and using FYM (10).

Conservation agriculture (CA) system is the most appropriate way to compensate the effect of climate change. It consists of components, such as no tillage (NT)/reduced tillage (RT)/minimum tillage, manuring, residue incorporation, mulching, growing green manure crops as cover crop, and rotation of crops with pulses and legumes, that can play important roles in soil carbon sequestration. At present, approximately 157.8 million hectares (Mha) is under CA throughout the world (29). In India, it is ~1.5 Mha. CA decreases the usage of fuel for machinery and chemical fertilizers, which causes pollution due to N₂ emissions. Overall, fossil fuel usage and GHG emissions are significantly reduced under CA (30). It makes the farming system flexible to climate change. The shifting of land from conventional farming to CA sequesters atmospheric C at a rate of 0.12 to 0.29 Mg ha^-1 year^-1 in Asia.

4 Soil-based technologies

CO₂ emission mitigation can be achieved through the enhancement of C sequestration in the soil (10). It is the capture and storage of C in soil, water, and engineering structures; otherwise, it will be released to the atmosphere and lead to global warming. The total C sequestration capacity of agricultural soils in India was 300 to 620 Mt (10).

4.1 Conservation tillage (minimum tillage/zero tillage/no tillage)

Intensive tillage enhances soil C emission, which ultimately reduces the SOC stock. Conversion from conventional tillage to conservation tillage (CT) could decline the emissions from fossil fuel carbon in agriculture. Intensive cultivation of soil producing CO₂ by breakdown of soil organic matter (SOM) consequently declines the total carbon (C) content. In conventional soil, tillage hastens the organic C oxidation, as large amounts of CO₂ are released into the atmosphere. Loss of soil carbon due to ploughing of soil contributed to adopting conservation tillage practices that can help to reverse this trend by enhancing the sequestration of atmospheric CO₂–C in agricultural soils, thereby contributing to the mitigation of greenhouse gas effects. Adoption of CT combined with residue retention can enhance SOM, bringing down CO₂ emissions and increasing SOC sequestration (14). Native soil C can be protected by RT/minimum tillage/NT to prevent soil erosion. Based on previous studies on the conversion of all conventionally managed croplands to conservation tillage, it was projected that a huge amount of atmospheric CO₂–C could be sequestered in agricultural soils over the next 50 years (31). Compared to conventional tillage, NT or ZT reduces the use of heavy farm machinery and thus reduces pollution from machinery. Thus, overall fossil fuel use and GHGs are greatly decreased under conservation tillage. Globally, the adoption of conservation tillage can sequester 25 Gt C over the next 50 years (32). The cost of climatic change mitigation by atmospheric CO₂–C sequestration into the soil through the adoption of NT is argued to be substantially lower than the costs associated with reducing industrial C emissions (33).

4.2 Residue management

The inefficient management of residue (crop and agroforestry) produced in the country has become an issue due to its enormous quantities. Approximately 500 Mt of crop residue is generated annually in India; from that, 141 Mt is surplus (34), of which 72 to 127 Mt is burnt on-farm in India (35, 2010). The conversion of surplus residues into biochar through a thermo-chemical process (slow pyrolysis) is an efficient management practice gaining importance (36) because it has potential to mitigate climate change by fixing inherent carbon from raw biomass and enhancing GHG sequestration into the soil. While the in situ burning of crop residues recovers only 3% of biomass carbon, converting these residues into biochar via slow pyrolysis can recover up to 50%. In the Indian context, converting residues from maize, castor, and pigeon pea into biochar has the potential to annually sequester 4.6 Mt of total carbon, offering a superior alternative to traditional residue retention (37). Biochar can be produced from the residues of maize, castor, cotton, and pigeon pea in India, and it can sequester approximately 4.6 Mt of total C annually into the soil (38). The sustainable management of biochar amendment to soil may annually sequester an amount of C equal to 12% of the current anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. The addition of biochar will decrease the emission of non-CO₂ GHGs from soil (39) due to the inhibition of nitrification (or denitrification) or the promotion of N₂O reduction, thus increasing CH₄ uptake from the soil and long-term carbon sequestration in the soil (6). For climate change mitigation through long-term C sequestration, the conversion of organic residues into biochar could be a viable technological option in India (2, 40).

4.3 Mulching

Mulching has the potential for carbon sequestration (CS) and reduces GHG emissions from soil by adding organic matter (Jordan et al., 2010). Mulches are widely used on farmlands, orchards, forests, and landscapes. Organic matter is essential for CS in croplands and rangelands. Organic amendments/mulches help sequester more C in the soil, contributing to SOC storage, CS, and climate change mitigation. Crop residues/stubbles can be used as cover material on some reduced-tillage systems when high-residue-yielding crops are grown or when terminated cover crop residue remains on the surface. Crop residues can increase carbon concentration and SOM (41).

Carbon concentration and SOM are increased by adding mulch, and crop residues are widely applied in the form of mulch. Mulching can increase CS up to 8 to 16 Mg ha⁻¹ year⁻¹ in agricultural soils and, additionally, improve the physical and chemical properties of soil. Mulching increases total SOM from 1.26% to 1.50% (42). Mulching also plays a key role in supplying nutrients, playing a role in the C and N cycles and acting as a sink for C. The variation in CS is attributed to the rate and timing of mulch application—for example, after 4 years of mulching, there will be 41% more CS, and after 11 years of mulching, there will be 52% more CS (43).

4.4 Green manuring

Green manuring is the most important practice contributing to the overall reduction of GHGs and increase of soil organic matter content. Gliricidia plantation on farm borders provides green leaf manure rich in nitrogen and also helps in reducing soil erosion (28). The application of 1 tonne ha^-1 of Gliricidia leaf manure provides N (21 kg), P (2.5 kg), K (18 kg), Zn (85 g), Mn (164 g), Cu (365 g), and Fe (728 g) besides considerable quantities of Ca, Mg, B, Mo, etc. Thus, Gliricidia application reduces soil erosion and pollution besides helping decrease the use of chemical fertilizers. It reduces N₂O and CO₂ emissions into the atmosphere and contributes to the overall reduction of GHGs as well as has far-reaching benefits in the climate change scenario (44). The inclusion of legumes in green manuring can fix atmospheric N₂ and decompose easily. Legume green manuring (LGM) improves the SOC and the chemical and biological properties of soil. LGM shows a high rate of N accumulation, i.e., 80 to 100 kg ha^-1 within 45 to 60 days of growth period. The symbiotic association of legumes with rhizobium can fix 10 Tg N year⁻¹, while forage legumes contribute 12 Tg N year⁻¹ (45).

4.5 Agroforestry

Among all techniques, agroforestry is one of the important techniques to reduce CO₂ emissions as well as enhance carbon sinks. It is an ancient land-use management practice that consists of combining agriculture and forestry, providing a unique opportunity to combine the dual objectives of climate change adaptation and mitigation. It includes perennial plants with deep root systems, thus enhancing carbon storage in soil. The worldwide area under agroforestry is 1,023 million ha (M ha). In India, it is 25.32 Mha (8.2% of the total geographical area of the country) (46). From this, cultivated lands account for 20.0 Mha, and 5.32 Mha are in other areas such as shifting cultivation (2.28 Mha), home gardens (2.93 Mha), and rehabilitation of problem soils. Agroforestry is a feasible option to mitigate climate change and reduce global warming by absorbing GHGs (CO₂) through the process of CS (47).

The carbon sequestration potential (CSP) of agroforestry systems (AFS) in India is estimated between 0.25 to 19.14 and 0.01 to 0.60 Mg C ha^-1 year^-1 for tree and crop components, respectively (CS in Indian agroforests in the north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh varies from 19.56 Mg C ha^-1 year^-1 to a carbon pool of 23.46–47.36 Mg C ha^-1 year^-1 in tree-bearing arid agro-ecosystems of Rajasthan) (48). AFS contribute to soil CS, which varies from 0.003 to 3.98 Mg C ha^-1 year^-1. AFS store carbon in soils as woody biomass and also reduce GHG emissions from soils. Nair (49) reported that the global carbon storage in AFS ranges from 0.29 to 15.21 Mg C ha^-1 year^-1 aboveground and 30–300 Mg C ha^-1 in the soil up to a depth of 1 m (the age varied from 4 to 35 years). Indirectly, they act as a substitution for fossil fuels and could prevent the release of 17 Mt C year^-1 worldwide. AFS provide an additional chance to raise the tree cover to a level of 33% of the country’s total geographical area as desired by the National Forest Policy. The conversion of wastelands and grasslands to agroforestry has the best potential to soak up atmospheric CO₂, in addition to direct benefits (50) (Table 2). The average annual increment of soil CSP in different croplands was highest in the USA (124.7 Mt C year^-1) (Figure 3), followed by India (103.8 Mt C year^-1) (69).

Figure 3

The wide variance in CSP ranging from 0.25 to 19.14 Mg C ha^-¹ year^-¹ is primarily attributed to differences in tree species, stand age, spatial distribution, and regional climate—for instance, block plantations of Eucalyptus tereticornis in the arid region show a high CSP of 13.86, whereas apple-based agri-horti-pastures in the Himalayas yield only 1.15. Thus, trees in agroforestry on farmers’ fields not only improve the livelihood of small and marginal farmers but also help mitigate global warming by reducing more than 33% of the total GHG emissions from climate-smart agriculture annually at the country level and enhancing CSP in Indian agriculture (50). In agroforestry systems, crop components also fix and store considerable amounts of carbon in the soil by improving soil organic matter, which is a significant component of the terrestrial C pool. An increment in the soil carbon pool can be achieved through the adoption of appropriate crop rotations and integrated soil fertility management (70). The Central Agroforestry Research Institute (CAFRI) in Jhansi has been carrying out a study on the CSP of various agroforestry systems from 2000 onwards through in-house and externally aided projects. CAFRI partners with ICARs “National Innovations in Climate Resilient Agriculture” (NICRA) scheme to assess the CSP of selected AFS in the country (50).

4.6 Jatropha plantation in degraded lands

The replacement of fossil fuel with biofuel for carbon is considered as an approach to energy security and mitigate climate change, thus the promotion of biodiesel as an alternative to petroleum diesel. Crude oil is imported in India to meet 70% of petroleum requirements, and 40% of the total petroleum-based fuel used is diesel. Jatropha, a good candidate for a biodiesel plant, can be cultivated in degraded soils. Its seeds yield 28%–40% oil, which can be used for biodiesel production as a replacement for fossil fuel, with a yield of 230 kg ha⁻¹ (53). Jatropha can also add a significant amount of C (305 kg ha⁻¹ year⁻¹) to the soil within 1 year. An average 3–5-year-old plantation can add 4,000 kg of plant biomass, equivalent to 1,450 kg C ha⁻¹, 800 kg C through leaves, 150 kg C through pruned twigs, and 495 kg C as deoiled Jatropha cake per year. In this context, the Government of India has approved the “National Policy on Biofuels” in 2009, with a target of 20% blending of biofuels with gasoline and diesel by the year 2017. Previous studies at the ICRISAT revealed that Jatropha fulfils many of the required criteria for a biofuel crop and has potential benefits for small and poor farmers. In India, 14 Mha of degraded, marginal, and waste lands have been identified for potential plantation with biofuels such as Jatropha in the immediate future. C fixation and addition to the soil under biofuel plantation through falling leaves, pruned twigs, and deoiled cake helps in the reclamation of degraded lands, along with the mitigation of global warming.

4.7 Legume- or pulse-based cropping system

The intervention of production systems with pulses enhances the SOC levels by addition of composed organic manures and cultivation cover crops. These systems obviously reduce GHG emissions through the inclusion of pulses in crop production and reduce the need of chemical fertilizers due to a lesser demand for input. Pulses contribute their own N requirement and also benefit succeeding crops (Table 3). Actually, pulses help in lowering GHG emissions due to lower fertilizer requirements (83). According to Gan (84), improved crop management practices in wheat, such as soil-test-based fertilization, reduction in summer fallow, and rotation with grain legumes, could lower the carbon foot print (CFP) by 256 kg CO₂-eq ha ⁻¹ year^-1 and sequester 0.027–0.377 kg CO₂-eq in the soil (Table 4). Legumes can play a significant role in reducing GHG emissions such as CO₂ and N₂O. Compared to other crops, legumes release five to seven times lower GHGs per unit area and allow CS in the soil at an average of 7.21g kg^-1 dry matter (DM). Amending the soil with soybean residues can increase SOC by 38.5% and induce a saving in fossil energy inputs in the system by reducing N fertilizer use, which corresponds to 277 kg ha⁻¹ of CO₂ per year. Measures of N₂O fluxes reported that peas emitted far less N₂O (69 kg ha⁻¹) than winter wheat (368 kg ha⁻¹) and rape (534 kg ha⁻¹) (89). A review of different life cycle assessments carried out on GHG emissions from 2000 to 2015 around the world highlighted that pulses have very low GWP values (0.50 to 0.51 kg CO₂-eq kg⁻¹ produce) (90).

4.8 Cropping systems

Cropping systems are a promising approach to reduce the atmospheric CO₂ concentration through C sequestration in croplands for climate change mitigation. For C sequestration, an ideal cropping system should produce and add an abundant quantity of plant biomass to the soil (Table 5). To increase biomass accumulation or C sequestration in the soil, cultivation intensity can be increased through intercropping, reducing fallow land, and adopting crop rotations, which can also prevent soil erosion and SOC loss (103).

4.9 Crop rotation

Biomass production and soil C sequestration can be improved by crop rotations, especially those involving legumes and non-legumes, which can considerably reduce nitrogen input as chemical fertilizers. Enhancing cropping intensity and adopting more frequent cropping, which reduce bare land in crop rotation, are also effective approaches to increase biomass production and soil C sequestration. In addition, increases in cropping intensity can decrease the rate of organic matter decomposition and the mineralization/oxidation of SOC.

4.10 Afforestation

Forestry is at the center stage of global climate change negotiations as it is a low-cost carbon mitigation option. Forests are both a major source as well as a sink of carbon emissions. Afforestation is an eco-friendly and readily available climate change mitigation option. In recent studies, afforestation is presented as a major solution to limit climate change (104). India ranks 10th among the most forest-rich nations in the world. India’s forests and tree cover account for 23.84% of the total geographic area of the country (105). The first comprehensive climate analysis report of India (Assessment of Climate Change over the Indian region) highlighted forestry as an effective climate change mitigation mechanism.

India’s forests are a major sink of CO₂. India’s forests and tree cover C stocks increased from 6,244.78 to 6,621.55 Mt from 1995 to 2005, with an annual increment of 37.68 Mt of C or 138.16 Mt of CO₂ equivalents (CO₂-eq). India’s forests and tree cover have stabilized India’s 11.25% of GHG emissions (CO₂-eq) at 1994 levels by annual removal of CO₂ (105). In 2007 GHG emissions in India were 1904.73 Mt of CO₂-eq. Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) was a net sink which sequestered 177.03 Mt of CO₂ in 2007. Therefore, the net GHG emissions from India is 1727.71 Mt of CO₂ (GoI 2010a). It shows that India’s forests and tree cover can neutralize approximately 8% of India’s total GHG emissions (CO₂-eq) (105). The National Forest Policy of 1952 established a target of 33% forest cover. The National Forest Action Programme of 1999 aimed to increase forest cover to 25% by 2007 and 33% by 2012 (Table 6).

According to Ravindranath et al. (113), the area under forests, including afforested, reforested areas and forest cover, is projected to reach 72 M ha by 2030, and the C stock in existing forests is estimated to be nearly stable at 8.79 Gt C over the next 25 years. If the current rate of afforestation will continue, it could increase the C stock by 11%, i.e., 9.75 Gt C by 2030. India’s forests would be able to mitigate only 7.65% of GHG emissions in 2030 (105). By 2030, the C stock in India’s forest would be 9,750 Mt, and the total GHG emissions would be <6,000 Mt. They estimated that the annual increment in forest C stock would be 125.14 Mt C, or 458.88 Mt of CO2-eq, i.e., 3.3 times increase from the 2005 value, while GHG emissions would increase by 3.2 times relative to the 2005 level. India committed at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties (COP, 2015) to restore 13 M ha of degraded and deforested land by 2020 and an additional 8 M ha by 2030. India envisions to create an additional carbon sink of 2.5–3.0 billion tonnes (Bt) of CO₂-eq through additional forests and tree cover by 2030 (114). To achieve its climate commitments, India would need to bring 33% of its geographical area under forest cover by 2022 (the current forest cover is at 24%). This would require an increase in forest cover of nearly 2% every year until 2022. However, it has grown by only 0.56%, or 3,976 km², since 2017.

The Government of India has promoted afforestation and reforestation through policies and programs such as the National Mission for a Green India, the national afforestation program, compensatory afforestation, and plantation drives across states. The National Afforestation Program, an amalgamation of all afforestation schemes under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, was launched during the Tenth Five-Year Plan in 2002. The forest cover in 2010 stood at 23%, with an increase of 0.5% per annum over the past decade. The overall allocation has increased to 31,000 million for 2020–2021 from 2,6579.4 million in the revised estimate of 2019–2020 for the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), for the integrated development of forest ecology.

4.11 Integrated farming system

Integration of various enterprises like field crops, horticultural/fruit crops, forest trees, green manures, fodder, livestock, poultry, fish, and vermicompost in a farming system can improve input use efficiency and carbon sequestration into soil and plant biomass. This helps in efficient land management and could help in the judicious use of inputs while mitigating GHG emissions into the atmosphere (115). A part of the GHGs emitted could be sequestered in plant biomass and stored for an extended period of time in an integrated farming system (IFS). Crop residues and organic manures incorporated into the system could also sequester GHGs and mitigate emission to some extent. Green manure application could also sequester carbon in the soil and thereby aid in GHG emissions to some extent. The amounts of GHGs sequestered and net GHG emissions in the four IFS models through tree components and incorporated manures/crop residues, in terms of kg CO₂-eq, are presented below (116).

IFS models have resulted in net negative GHG emissions (-69,421, -17,910, and -10,702 kg CO₂-eq, respectively), while rice-based IFS models produced 799 kg CO₂–eq. The agroforestry component and biomass/manure incorporated into the soil serve as carbon sinks and aid in mitigating GHG emissions (Table 7). This clearly suggests the role of trees in fixing CO₂ being released within the system.

5 Water-based technologies

5.1 Micro-irrigation (drip irrigation, sensor-based micro-irrigation)

Meeting irrigation water demand with a reduced energy footprint can be achieved through improved irrigation technologies. Water and energy conservation will have to come from the efficient use of water and energy. For every 1% increment in irrigation efficiency, GHG emissions are reduced by 2.1% (117), while water use efficiency increases by 50%–90% (7). Micro-irrigation (MI) serves as both an adaptation and mitigation strategy against climate change. MI technologies, such as drip systems, apply water drop by drop directly to the targeted root zone of crops, while sprinkler systems apply water as a spray of tiny droplets over the crop. Improved water management practices in rice cultivation, such as shifting from continuously flooded rice fields to alternate wetting and drying, can offer mitigation of approximately 12 MtCO₂-eq per year¹. Other water management techniques in major cereals, such as laser-levelling of fields, or using sprinkler or micro-sprinkler irrigation and fertigation together, also provide important GHG emissions savings, with a reduction of approximately 4 MtCO₂-eq year for laser leveling alone (https://ccafs.cgiar.org).

5.2 Alternate wetting and drying

The alternate wetting and drying (AWD) technology in rice cultivation involves flooding a rice field and then allowing the irrigation water to drain for 2 to 3 days, followed by re-flooding and draining in cycles throughout the season. This approach has been suggested by many researchers to mitigate CH₄ emissions from rice fields. Total carbon-equivalent emissions from the irrigated rice-growing areas of the country were reduced from 41.1 to 36.2 Tg C per year under intermittent irrigation in rice (118). A package of practices for mitigating GHG emissions includes intermittent flooding, which reduces GWP by 25%–30% compared to continuous flooding, and growing shorter-duration rice varieties such as Pusa Basmati 1509, which reduces GWP by 15%–20% compared to Pusa Basmati 1121 (10).

5.3 Fertigation

Fertigation—a modern agro-technique of supplying fertilizers via irrigation water to crops in the field—provides an excellent opportunity to maximize yield and minimize environmental pollution. In fertigation, the timing, amount, and concentration of fertilizers applied are easily controlled. In 2015–2016, India applied approximately 27 Mt of fertilizers to its farms. Approximately 10–20 kg/ha of nitrogen nutrient applied is leached to reach streams and other water bodies, including groundwater. With a potential 25% savings in fertilizer application through MI systems, the savings in fertilizer use and fertilizer subsidy are also significant. The associated benefits of savings in energy and fertilizer reduce the cost of cultivation. Fertigation allows landscapes to absorb up to 90% of the applied nutrients.

5.4 Direct-seeded rice cultivation

The total estimated GHG emissions in India were 137.4, 130.5, and 103.4 MtCO₂-eq under conventional transplanted rice (CTR), machine-transplanted rice (MTR), and direct-seeded rice (DSR) cultivation, respectively. DSR crops do not require soil submergence continuously, and therefore it can reduce CH₄ emission. DSR significantly outperforms CTR in terms of climate resilience, reducing the GWP by 25% to 50%. Specifically, dry DSR and wet DSR exhibit 76.2% and 60.4% lower potential for global warming, respectively, due to the avoidance of continuous soil submergence and preparatory tillage operations (10, 119). The traditional three to four preparatory tillage operations in CTR before rice transplanting that are completely eliminated under DSR can decrease fuel consumption related to tillage and water pumping operations. One tillage operation with a harrow or cultivator consumes, on average, approximately 10 L of diesel ha^-1 (CIMMYT’s field record). Thus, avoiding one tillage operation translates into approximately 380 MJ of energy savings and 2.68 kg CO₂-eq of GHG savings per hectare (120). The non-requirement of puddling in DSR also reduces the amount of water required, thereby reducing emissions associated with water pumping and facilitating the downward percolation of water, resulting in aerobic conditions that promote CH₄ oxidization, which is then further dissolved in the soil solution. The higher GHG mitigation potential of DSR is due to the complete avoidance of preparatory tillage and more aerobic soil conditions.

6 Nutrient-based technologies

India is the largest fertilizer-consuming country, with lower use efficiency in crop production than other countries in Europe, where fertilizer consumption has been declining in recent years. The manufacturing, distribution, storage, and application of mineral fertilizers contribute nearly 2% of total global GHG emissions (121). To increase fertilizer use efficiency in crops and thereby reduce associated GHG emissions, the focus should be on best management strategies based on the principle of “right source, at the right rate, at the right time, and the right placement” of fertilizers. Heavy subsidies for N fertilizers encourage farmers to apply more N fertilizers than necessary, which causes imbalanced fertilizer application. The adoption of fertilizer best management practices can help reduce inefficiency and also decrease GHG emissions and other environmental damage (Table 8). Reducing the use of mineral fertilizers also has additional benefits in terms of saving GHG emissions from their manufacture and transportation. Upgrading all fertilizer production plants to modern standards can also reduce energy requirements and N₂O emissions (126).

6.1 Controlled-release fertilizers

N management is the potential strategy to reduce GHG emissions in wetlands. To reduce N₂O emissions by increasing nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), the integrated use of manure and fertilizers to reduce dependence on synthetic fertilizers, soil-test-based N application, and the use of advanced fertilizer technologies such as controlled-release fertilizers (CRF) or slow-release fertilizers (SRF) and nitrification inhibitors can be effective mitigation options with lower environmental impact. The application of chemical fertilizers not only contributes to N₂O emission but may also impact on CO₂ and CH₄ emissions, thereby contributing to enhanced global warming (127).

6.2 Neem-coated urea

Some plant-derived organics such as neem oil, neem cake, and karanja seed extract can also act as nitrification inhibitors. Neem-coated urea fertilizer is one of the solutions. Inhibiting the nitrification rate of urea can reduce NO₃ and N₂O emissions while enhancing the efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer at the same time. Neem (Azadirachta indica) can slow down the nitrification rate by 20%–50%, which is slightly lower than that of dicyandiamide (DCD) (56%–80%). The application of NCU reduced total N₂O emissions by 12% in rice fields and by 63% in wheat fields (128). The use of calcium carbide and dicyandiamide as nitrification inhibitors can reduce emissions by 10%–15% (129, 130).

6.3 Leaf color chart

The leaf color chart (LCC) can be used for real-time N management and synchronizing N application with crop demand to reduce GHGs emissions. LCC-based application of urea caused a reduction in N₂O emissions in rice and wheat as reported by Bhatia et al. (131). Demand-driven N use using an LCC could reduce N₂O emissions and GWP by approximately 11%–14% (10, 131, 132). In northwestern India, the application of fertilizers in rice at LCC ≤4 decreased CH₄ and N₂O emissions by 11% and 16%, respectively, compared with conventional N fertilizer application in split doses. In wheat, it led to 18% lower N₂O emissions compared with conventional N fertilizer application (119).

6.4 Nano-fertilizers

Nano-fertilizers represent a frontier in precision agriculture, offering controlled nutrient release that significantly improves nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) while minimizing environmental leakage. Recent studies suggest that nano-zeolites and nano-composites can reduce nitrous oxide emissions by nearly 50% compared with conventional urea application (133). Given that over 95% of Indian soils are nitrogen-deficient and nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) is only 30%–35%, nano-fertilizers offer a critical intervention. Zeolite-based nano-fertilizers provide steady nutrient release, which has been shown to reduce nitrous oxide emissions by 50% compared to conventional applications while simultaneously improving both macro- and micronutrient uptake (18).

Reducing synthetic fertilizer application could have significant potential to mitigate GHG emissions and reduce total fertilizer-related emissions. This reduction can be achieved by reducing the overuse of chemical N fertilizers without reducing the total N input to crops, consequently without compromising food production. Fertilizing with legumes could contribute a significant share of this N without changes in yield. In addition, it has been estimated that organic residues in India, including a variety of sources from manure to urban compost to compost of the invasive water hyacinth, could provide a total of 14.22 Mt N per year.

6.5 Soil health card

Soil health card (SHC) plays major role in achieving climate change mitigation and contributing to a safer planet. The judicious application of fertilizers is a key component of SHC-based nutrient management and has the dual benefit of improving crop yields and reducing GHG emissions. Thus, it leads to a win-win situation of higher farm productivity and environmental protection. India consumed approximately 28.97 Mt of fertilizers during 2019–2020. The National Productivity Council (NPC) study on the adoption of SHC application nationwide led to a decrease in the use of chemical fertilizers by 8%–10% (2.31–2.89 Mt).

6.6 Integrated nutrient management

Integrated nutrient management (INM) practices include the combined use of mineral fertilizers with organic sources such as cattle manure, crop residues, urban/rural wastes, composts, green manures, and bio-fertilizers based on their availability and cost-effectiveness. The judicious combination of these two sources has mutually reinforcing benefits. Moreover, the application of organic manures combined with inorganic fertilizers enhances SOC content rather emissions. The principles of INM, through which Integrated Plant Nutrient System (IPNS) operates, help mitigate N₂O and CH₄ emissions and enhance soil C storage in soil management systems. Fertilizer manufacturing is an energy-consuming process that requires the burning of large amounts of fossil fuels. Part of this fertilizer requirement can be supplemented through organic amendments, which would decrease fertilizer use and ultimately reduce GHG emissions. As per estimates from municipal solid waste, CH₄ emissions vary from 0.33 to 1.80 Tg year^-1, N₂O emissions are 7 Gg year^-1, and total CO₂-eq emissions are 38.2 Tg year^-1 (134). Burning 1 tonne of rice straw produces approximately 3 kg of particulate matter, 60 kg of CO, 1,460 kg of CO₂, 199 kg of ash, and 2 kg of SO₂ (135). Dependence on chemical fertilizers and GHG emissions can be reduced by following integrated nutrient management practices, such as the conversion of solid wastes and crop residues into compost. Crop residues, legumes, green manure, off-farm organic waste, and improved soil and crop management practices help in C sequestration. Thus, INM practices, through the inclusion of organic amendments combined with suitable management practices, are considered a viable approach to mitigating climate change and supplementing soil carbon stocks (136).

6.7 Organic fertilizer application/organic manure application

There are various organic fertilizers (farmyard manure, vermicompost, green manure, and Azolla) that serve as major components of INM or IPNS and can be applied to soils by farmers based on the availability of these sources. Organic fertilizers improve the SOM content of soils, enhance soil carbon sequestration (carbon sinks), and slow the return of stored carbon to the atmosphere, resulting in potential GHG mitigation in agriculture. However, increased soil organic carbon (SOC) storage does not always imply contribution to climate change mitigation (123). These organic sources, along with fertilizers as components of INM to supplement the nutrient needs of crops, reduce the use of synthetic fertilizer, which ultimately mitigates GHG emissions (136).

6.8 Bio-fertilizer

Bio-fertilizer is one of the most important components of INM. It contains living cells of different types of microorganisms and can be applied to seeds, soil, or growing plants. They colonize the rhizosphere or the interior of the plant and promote growth by increasing the supply or availability of primary nutrients to the plant. Nitrogen fixers (Rhizobium, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, and blue-green algae), phosphate solubilizers (Pseudomonas and Bacillus), potassium solubilizers, growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs), endo- and ecto-mycorrhizal fungi, cyanobacteria, and other beneficial microorganisms are important bio-fertilizers in agriculture. These bio-fertilizers play a key role in soil productivity and sustainability and also in protecting the environment, serving as eco-friendly and cost-effective inputs for farmers (Itelima). Bio-fertilizers are environmentally friendly and can fix N₂ (N fixers) and act as CO₂ assimilators (cyanobacteria). They have an essential carbon-concentrating mechanism (CCM) that concentrates CO₂ at the site of photosynthetic carboxylation. In this respect, the CCM in cyanobacteria is similar to that found in C₄ plants. This enables them to maintain high rates of CO₂ fixation and also grow under low CO₂.

7 Synergy of soil–water–nutrient technologies for adaptation and mitigation

In agriculture, GHG mitigation is cost-effective and significant. The challenges of agriculture in the context of climate change are twofold: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance soil carbon storage, as well as to adapt to a changing climate. These mitigation options affect soil properties and the carbon and nitrogen cycles of agroecosystems (Figure 4). Adaptations to increased temperature and rainfall variability may increase the resilience of agroecosystem production. This can be done by increasing the water-holding capacity of soil by incorporating organic residues into the soil or by diversifying crop cultivation. These adaptations have significant effects on mitigation strategies, such as reducing soil erosion, reducing nitrogen and phosphorus leaching, conserving soil moisture, increasing the diversity of crop rotations, modifying the microclimate to reduce temperature extremes and provide shelter, promoting land-use changes through the abandonment or intensification of existing agricultural land, and avoiding the cultivation of new land. There is a large potential for synergies between mitigation and adaptation within agriculture, and there is a need to study the interlinkages between mitigations and adaptations. There is a need to develop new agriculture production systems to integrate bioenergy, food, and feed production systems to know the potentiality of agriculture in this changing climate. Despite the high mitigation potential of the reviewed technologies, significant trade-offs exist between greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and crop productivity—for instance, while alternate wetting and drying (AWD) reduces methane emissions by up to 35%, improper water stress management can lead to yield penalties in sensitive rice varieties. Furthermore, many soil-based technologies, such as biochar application, require high initial investments and lack long-term, field-scale validation across diverse Indian agro-climatic zones. Future research must bridge the gap between plot-level experimental data and regional-scale implementation, focusing on the socio-economic barriers to adoption among smallholder farmers.

Figure 4

Among GHGs, nitrous oxide (N₂O) and carbon dioxide (CO₂) are the most important in dry croplands, and the emissions of these gases are mainly affected by management practices. CO₂ emissions are mainly affected by carbon inputs and tillage practices, which affect the soil carbon turnover rate by influencing soil organic matter oxidation. Adaptation measures for reducing GHG emissions mainly focus on increasing C storage in soil while at the same time reducing N₂O emissions through minimizing N losses from the system. In Asia, paddy, which occupies a dominant production area, emits methane (CH₄) through anaerobic decomposition due to being under continuously submerged conditions. Retaining crop residues or increasing the organic matter content in soil reduces the emissions of C₂O, N₂O, and CH₄ as well as increases C stock and enhances crop yield and the adaptive capacity of the soil. The intensification of the hydrological cycle is one of the main challenges under this changing climate, resulting in longer dry spells and more intense rainfall. The increased risk of soil erosion and nutrient leaching will influence C and N cycling, resulting in GHG emissions. The changes in precipitation patterns lead to higher dependence of crop growth and yield on stored soil moisture and its conservation, although the seasonality of precipitation will be critical. This will influence soil C storage and possibly N₂O emissions (137).

8 Conclusion

The demand for food production in India by 2030 is projected to be approximately 355 Mt of food grains, 180 Mt of vegetables, 182 Mt of milk, and 15 and 16 Mt of meat and fish, respectively, representing 50%–100% increase over current production levels. This can be achieved by reducing GHG emissions and using cleaner energy. In the present scenario, climate-change-related issues are addressed by improving the productivity of pulses, following efficient nutrient and water management practices, changing the cropping patterns, promoting abiotic-stress-tolerant species, introducing alternate legume crops into cropping systems, enhancing watershed management, and adopting micro-irrigation practices. Adoption of recommended management practices promotes climate-resilient agriculture by conserving soil and water, enhancing soil organic carbon content, and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural fields. To realize these benefits, policy frameworks must transition from general subsidies to performance-based incentives for carbon sequestration. Prioritizing the digital integration of soil health cards with real-time weather and irrigation data will be critical for scaling climate-smart technologies across India’s diverse farming landscapes.

8.1 Way forward

᠅ There is a need to promote resource conservation technologies such as conservation agriculture (CA) practices, DSR in rice, diversified cropping systems, proper crop residue management to reduce in-field burning, inclusion of legumes and oilseed crops in cropping systems, efficient irrigation systems such as drip and sprinkler irrigation for water conservation, and slow-release fertilizers to increase nutrient use efficiency and reduce volatilization and leaching losses.

᠅ Trainings and awareness programs should be conducted to educate farmers about GHG emissions from agricultural fields and their adverse impacts on food productivity systems and human health.

᠅ Policy interventions should be related to GHG emission mitigation technologies, which are critical for the judicious management of available nutrient resources, enhancement of SOC buildup, and avoidance of residue burning.

᠅ Farmers should be fully educated regarding the actual fertilizer rates based on soil test results and monitored to ensure the balanced and integrated application of organic and inorganic nutrient sources.

᠅ There is a need for the holistic management of soil, water, and nutrients to minimize GHG emissions and address climatic vulnerabilities.

References

• 1

  AroraMGoelNKSinghP. (2005). “ Evaluation of temperature trends over India”, in: Hydrological Sciences and Water Security: Past, Present and Future. (Wallingford, Oxfordshire: International Association of Hydrological Sciences), 50.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  SrinivasaraoCPrasadJVNSChoudhariSKSinghAK. Mainstreaming climate resilient villages in national programmes towards sustainability of agriculture and environment in India. Climate Change Environ Sustainability. (2020) 8:116–33. doi: 10.5958/2320-642X.2020.00013.7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  WMO greenhouse gas bulletin, no.17, 25^th october 2021. (Geneva: World Meteorological Organization). (2021).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  Ministry of Environment and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Organization). India, Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India (2012).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  HoughtonJT. The ipcc report 2001. In: The Solar Cycle and Terrestrial Climate, Solar and Space Weather. (UK: IPCC unit, Hadley Centre, Meteorological Office) (2000). 463:255.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  SrinivasaraoCGopinathKAVenkateshGDubeyAKHarshaWPurakayasthaTJet al. Use of biochar for soil health management and greenhouse gas mitigation in India: Potential and constraints. In: Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. (Hyderabad: National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture, Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture) (2013). p. 1–51.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  SureshASamuelMP. Micro-irrigation development in India: challenges and strategies. Curr Sci. (2020) 118:1163. doi: 10.18520/cs/v118/i8/1163-1168

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  Available online at: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions.

  • View reference in article

• 9

  FAO. Climate change adaptation and mitigation in agriculture. In: Course: Climate Change and Food Security. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Natural Resources Management and Environment Department. (2012).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  PathakH. Greenhouse gas emission from Indian agriculture: trends, drivers and mitigation strategies. Proc Indian Natl Sci Acad. (2015) 81:1133–49. doi: 10.16943/ptinsa/2015/v81i5/48333

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  AggarwalP. Global climate change and Indian agriculture: impacts, adaptation and mitigation. Indian J Agric Sci. (2008) 78:911–9.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  INCCA (Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment). India: greenhouse gas emissions 2007. (2010).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  JainNBhatiaAPathakH. Emission of air pollutants from crop residue burning in India. Aerosol Air Qual Res. (2014) 14:422–30. doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2013.01.0031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  AbdallaMOsborneBLaniganGForristalDWilliamsMSmithPet al. Conservation tillage systems: a review of its consequences for greenhouse gas emissions. Soil Use Manage. (2013) 29:199–209. doi: 10.1111/sum.12030

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  WRI Annual Report (2009). Available online at: https://www.wri.org/wri-annual-report-2009.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  ShahRSrivastavaR. Effect of global warming on Indian agriculture. Sustain Environ. (2017) 2:366. doi: 10.22158/se.v2n4p366

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  IPCC. IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment Report. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  MohanrajJSubramanianKSLakshmananA. Role of nano-fertilizer on greenhouse gas emission in rice soil ecosystem. Madras Agric J. (2019) 106(10–12):657. doi: 10.29321/maj.2019.000327

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). Annual report 2013. (2013) 29:441–8.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  HussainSPengSFahadSKhaliqAHuangJCuiKet al. Rice management interventions to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions: a review. Environ Sci pollut Res. (2015) 22:3342–60. doi: 10.1007/s11356-014-3760-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  BrownSLinckeDNichollsRJHinkelJ. The impacts of sea-level rise on European coasts in a 2°C world.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  AggarwalPKKumarSNPathakH. Impacts of climate change on growth and yield of rice and wheat in the Upper Ganga Basin. In: Indian Agricultural Research Institute (Iari). WWF-India commissioned this study to the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) (2010).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  PengS. (2004). “ Rice yields decline with higher night temperature from global warming”, in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (USA). SCRP open access.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  AllenMDubeOPSoleckiWAragón-DurandFCramerWHumphreysSet al. Special report: Global warming of 1.5 C. In: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), vol. 677. (2018). p. 49–92.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  MoEFCC. India: second biennial update report to the united nations framework convention on climate change. In: . Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India (2018).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  IEA. CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel combustion. OECD/IEA France: Int Energy Agency. (2014).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  IEA. World energy statistics. OECD/IEA France: Int Energy Agency. (2014). doi: 10.1787/key_energ_stat-2014-en

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  SrinivasaraoCRavindra CharyGVenkateswarluBVittalKPrasadJSumanta Kunduet al. Carbon sequestration strategies under raillied production systems of India. In: Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad (ICAR). (Hyderabad: Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, PO. Saidabad). (2009). p. 1–102.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  NarayanS. Conservation agriculture: an overview. J Medicinal Plants. (2017) 5:139–44.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  NiggliUFließbachAHepperlyPScialabbaN. Low greenhouse gas agriculture: mitigation and adaptation potential of sustainable farming systems. Ökologie Landbau. (2009) 141:32–3.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  LalR. Sequestering carbon in soils of agroecosystems. Food Policy. (2011) 36:S33–9. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.12.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  TanveerSKLuXShahSUSHussainISohailM. Soil carbon sequestration through agronomic management practices. CO₂ sequestration, 5. (2019). doi: 10.5772/intechopen.87107

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  YangXDruryCFWanderMM. A wide view of no-tillage practices and soil organic carbon sequestration. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B-Soil Plant Sci. (2013) 63:523–30. doi: 10.1080/09064710.2013.816363

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  MNRE. Ministry of new and renewable energy resources, govt. of India, new delhi (2009). Available online at: https://www.mnre.gov.in/biomassrsources.

  • Google Scholar

• 35

  PathakHSinghRBhatiaAJainN. Recycling of rice straw to improve wheat yield and soil fertility and reduce atmospheric pollution. Paddy Water Environ. (2006) 4:111–7. doi: 10.1007/s10333-006-0038-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  VenkateshGGopinathKASammi ReddyKSanjeeva ReddyBPrasadJVNSRajeshwar RaoGet al. Biochar production and its use in rainfed agriculture: experiences from CRIDA. In: CRIDA-NICRA Research Bulletin 02/2018, ICAR - Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad. (Hyderabad: National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture Research, ICAR - Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture) (2018). pp. 50.

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  LehmannJGauntJRondonM. Biochar sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems: a review. Mitigation Adapt Strategies Global Change. (2006) 11:395–419. doi: 10.1007/s11027-005-9006-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  VenkateshGSrinivasa RaoCGopinathKASammi ReddyK. Low-cost portable kiln for biochar production from on-farm crop residue. Indian farming. (2015) 64:9–12.

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  ZwietenVLKimberSMorrisSChanKYDownieARustJet al. Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of paper mill waste on agronomic performance and soil fertility. Plant Soil. (2010) 327:235–46. doi: 10.1007/s11104-009-0050-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  LehmannJRilligMCThiesJMasielloCAHockadayWCCrowleyD. Biochar effects on soil biota - a review. Soil Biol Biochem. (2011) 43:1812–36. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  JordánAZavalaLMGilJ. Effects of mulching on soil physical properties and runoff under semi-arid conditions in southern Spain. Catena. (2010) 81:77–85. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2010.01.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  KahlonMSLalRAnn-VarugheseM. Twenty two years of tillage and mulching impacts on soil physical characteristics and carbon sequestration in Central Ohio. Soil Tillage Res. (2013) 126:151–8. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2012.08.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  ChandraMSTomarSKKumarRNareshRK. Conservation agriculture and mulching improving soil carbon sequestration in arable cropping systems.

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  SrinivasaraoCVenkateswarluBDinesh BabuMWaniSDixitSSahrawatKLet al. Soil health improvement with gliricidia green leaf manuring in rainfed agriculture, on farm experiences. In: Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, PO. Saidabad, Hyderabad 500 059, Andhra Pradesh. (Hyderabad: Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture). (2011). p. 1–16.

  • Google Scholar

• 45

  MeenaBLFagodiyaRKPrajapatKDotaniyaMLKaledhonkarMJSharmaPCet al. Legume green manuring: an option for soil sustainability. In: Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management. (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore) (2018). p. 387–408.

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  ToppoPRajA. Role of agroforestry in climate change mitigation. J Pharmacognosy Phytochem. (2018) 7:241–3.

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  KumarBMKunhamuTK. Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in India: a synthesis. Agroforestry Ecosystem Serv. (2021), 389–430. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-80060-4_15

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  SinghAK. Soil carbon dynamics under agroforestry systems in arid regions. Arid Land Res Manage. (2017) 31:1–14.

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  NairPKR. Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Adv Agron. (2010) 108:237–307. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2113(10)08005-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  DhyaniSKRamADevI. Potential of agroforestry systems in carbon sequestration in India. Indian J Agric Sci. (2016) 86:1103–12. doi: 10.56093/ijas.v86i9.61348

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  NewajRDhyaniSK. Agroforestry for carbon sequestration: scope and present status. Indian J Agroforestry. (2008) 10:1–9. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-9628-1_19

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  KaurBGuptaSRSinghG. Carbon storage and nitrogen cycling in silvopastoral systems on a sodic in northwestern India. Agroforestry Systems. (2002) 54:21–9.

  • Google Scholar

• 53

  WaniSPChanderGSahrawatKLRaoCSRaghvendraGSusannaPet al. Carbon sequestration and land rehabilitation through Jatropha curcas (L.) plantation in degraded lands. Agric Ecosyst Environ. (2012) 161:112–20. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2012.07.028

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  AICRPAF. Report, All India Coordinated Research Project on Agroforestry. Jhansi: NRCAF (2006).

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  SaleemIMuglooJAPalaNABhatGMMasoodiTHMughalAHet al. Biomass production, carbon stock and sequestration potential of prominent agroforestry systems in north-western Himalaya, India. Front For Global Change. (2023) 6:1192382. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2023.1192382

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  KaushalRTewariSKBanikRLChaturvediS. (2014). Growth, biomass production and soil properties under different bamboo Species, in: ISTS-IUFRO Conference on Sustainable Resource Management for Climate Change Mitigation and Social Security at Chandigarh, India .

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  NathAJDasAK. Carbon pool and sequestration potential of village bamboos in agroforestry systems in Northeast India. Trop Ecology. (2012) 53:287–93.

  • Google Scholar

• 58

  MittalSPSinghP. Intercropping field crops between rows of Leucaena leucocephala under rainfed conditions in northern India. Agroforestry Systems. (1989) 8:165–72.

  • Google Scholar

• 59

  ChauhanSKSharmaSCChauhanRGuptaNSrivastavaR. Accounting poplar and wheat productivity for carbon sequestration in agrisilviculture system. Indian Forester. (2010) 136:1174–82.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  SwamySLMishraAPuriS. Biomass production and root distribution of Gmelia arborea under an agri-silviculture system in sub-humid tropics of central India. News Forest. (2003) 26:167–86.

  • Google Scholar

• 61

  NegiJDSBahugunaVKSharmaDC. Biomass production and distribution of nutrients in 2 years old teak (Tectona grandis) and gamar (Gmelina arborea) plantation in Tripura. Indian Forester. (1990) 116:681–6.

  • Google Scholar

• 62

  SwamySLPuriS. Biomass production and Csequestration of Gmelina arborea in plantation and agroforestry system in India. Agroforestry Systems. (2005) 64:181–95.

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  BalaSBiswasSMazumdarA. Potential of carbon benefits from eucalyptus hybrid in dry-deciduous coppice forest of Jharkhand. ARPN J Eng Appl Sci. (2012) 7:1416–22.

  • Google Scholar

• 64

  PragasonAKarthikA. Carbon stock sequestered by tree plantation in University campus at Coimbatore, India. Int J Environ Sci. (2013) 3:1700–10.

  • Google Scholar

• 65

  RaoLGGJosephBSreemannarayanaB. Growth and biomass production of some important multipurpose tree species on rainfed sandy loam soils. Indian Forester. (2000) 126:772–81.

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  PrasadJVNSSrinivasKSrinivasaraoCRameshCVenkatravammaKVenkateswarluB. Biomass productivity and carbon stocks of farm forestry and agroforestry systems of leucaena and eucalyptus in Andhra Pradesh, India. Curr Science. (2012) 103:536–40.

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  RaiPSolankiKRSinghUP. Growth and biomass production of multipurpose tree species in natural grassland under semi-arid condition. Indian J Agroforestry. (2001) 2:101–3.

  • Google Scholar

• 68

  SahaSNairPKRNairVDKumarBM. Soil carbon stocks in relation to plant diversity of home gardens in Kerala, India. Agroforestry Systems. (2009) 76:53–65.

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  ZomerRJBossioDASommerRVerchotLV. Global sequestration potential of Increased organic carbon in cropland soils. Sci Rep. (2017) 7:15554. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-15794-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  SrinivasaraoCVenkateswarluBLalRSinghAKVittalKPRKunduet al. Long‐Term effects of soil fertility management on carbon sequestration in a rice–lentil cropping system of the indo‐Gangetic plains. Soil Sci Soc Am J. (2012) 76:168–78. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2011.0184

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  JensenESCarlssonGHauggaard-NielsenH. Intercropping of grain legumes and cereals improves nitrogen use efficiency. Agron Sustain Dev. (2020) 40:32. doi: 10.1007/s13593-020-0607-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  SalvagiottiFCassmanKGSpechtJEWaltersDTWeissADobermannA. Nitrogen uptake, fixation and response to fertilizer N in soybeans: A review. Field Crops Res. (2008) 108:1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2008.03.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  GillerKE. Nitrogen Fixation in Tropical Cropping Systems. Wallingford, CAB International (2001).

  • Google Scholar

• 74

  FAO. Biological nitrogen fixation and legumes in cropping systems. (2016).

  • Google Scholar

• 75

  MeeluOPFurocREDizonMAMorrisRAMarquesesFP. (1985). Evaluation of different green manures on rice yield and soil fertility, in: Paper presented at the 16th annual scientific convention of the Crop Society of Philippines, 8–10 May, 1985, Central Luzon State University, Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines.

  • Google Scholar

• 76

  PeoplesMÁBrockwellJHerridgeDFRochesterIJAlvesBJRUrquiagaSet al. The contributions of nitrogen-fixing crop legumes to the productivity of agricultural systems. Symbiosis. (2009) 48:1–17. doi: 10.1007/bf03179980

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  HerridgeDFPeoplesMBBoddeyRM. Global inputs of biological nitrogen fixation in agricultural systems. Plant Soil. (2008) 311:1–18. doi: 10.1007/s11104-008-9668-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  FurocREDizonMAMorrisRAMarquesesEP. (1985). Effects of flooding regime and planting dates to N accumulation of three Sesbania species and consequently to transplanted rice, in: Paper presented at the 16th annual scientific convention of the crop science Society of Philippines, 8-10 May 1985, Central Luzon State University, Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines.

  • Google Scholar

• 79

  LadhaJKWatanabeISaonoS. Nitrogen fixation by leguminous green manure and practices for its enhancement in tropical lowland rice. In: The International Rice Research Institute (ed) Sustainable agriculture: green manure in rice farming. Los Banos: IRRI, (1988). 165–83.

  • Google Scholar

• 80

  GhaiKRaoDLNBatraL. Comparative study of the potential of sesbania for green manuring. Trop Agriculture. (1985) 62:52–6.

  • Google Scholar

• 81

  SinghYKhindCSSinghB. Efficient management of leguminous green manures in wetland rice. Adv Agronomy (1991) 45:135–89.

  • Google Scholar

• 82

  WatanabeI. Use of green manure in northeast Asia. In: International Rice Research Institute (ed) Organic matter and rice. Los Banos: IRRI. (1984), 229–34.

  • Google Scholar

• 83

  VenkateshMSHazraKKGhoshPKPraharajCSKumarN. Long-term effect of pulses and nutrient management on soil carbon sequestration in Indo-Gangetic plains of India. Can J Soil Sci. (2013) 93:127–36. doi: 10.4141/cjss2012-072

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  GanY. Improving farming practices reduce the carbon footprint of spring wheat production. Nat Commun. (2014) 5:5012. doi: 10.1038/ncomms6012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  GuanXKTurnerNCSongLGuYJWangTCLiFM. Soil carbon sequestration by three perennial legume pastures is greater in deeper soil layers than in the surface soil. Biogeosciences (2016) 13(2):527–34.

  • Google Scholar

• 86

  SistiCPJDos SantosHPKochhannRAAlvesBJRUrquiagaSBoddeyRM. Change in carbon and nitrogen stocks in soil under 13 years of conventional or zero tillage in southern Brazil. Soil Tillage Res. (2004) 76:39–58.

  • Google Scholar

• 87

  FisherMJRaoIMAyarzaMALasconoCESanzJIThomasRJet al. Carbon storage by introduced deep-rooted grasses in South American savannas. Nature. (1994) 371:236–8.

  • Google Scholar

• 88

  AlegreJAlonso-BlázquezNDe AndrésEFTenorioJLAyerbeL. Revegetation and reclamation of soils using wild leguminous shrubs in cold semiarid Mediterranean conditions: litterfall and carbon and nitrogen returns under two aridity regimes. Plant Soil. (2004) 263:203–12.

  • Google Scholar

• 89

  StagnariFMaggioAGalieniAPisanteM. Multiple benefits of legumes for agriculture sustainability: an overview. Chem Biol Technol Agric. (2017) 4:1–13. doi: 10.1186/s40538-016-0085-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  CluneSCrossinEVergheseK. Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. J Cleaner Prod. (2017) 140:766–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.082

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  GhoshSWilsonBRMandalBGhoshalSKGrownsI. Soil organic carbon sequestration in relation to organic and inorganic fertilization in rice–wheat and maize–wheat systems. Soil Tillage Res. (2009) 102:87–92. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2008.07.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  MandalBMajumderBBandyopadhyayPKHazraGCGangopadhyayASamantarayRN. The potential of cropping systems and soil amendments for carbon sequestration in soils under long-term experiments in subtropical India. Global Change Biol. (2007) 13:357–69.

  • Google Scholar

• 93

  MajumderBMandalBBandyopadhyayPKGangopadhyayAManiPKKunduALet al. Organic amendments influence soil organic carbon pools and rice–wheat productivity. Soil Sci Soc America J. (2008) 72:775–85.

  • Google Scholar

• 94

  MannaMCSwarupAWanjariRHRavankarHNMishraBSahaMNet al. Long-term effect of fertilizer and manure application on soil organic carbon storage, soil quality and yield sustainability under sub-humid and semi-arid tropical India. Field Crops Res. (2005) 93:264–80.

  • Google Scholar

• 95

  NayakPPatelDRamakrishnanBMishraAKSamantarayRN. Long-term application effects of chemical fertilizer and compost on soil carbon under intensive rice–rice cultivation. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. (2009) 83(3):259–69. doi: 10.1007/s10705-008-9217-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  KunduSBhattacharyyaRPrakashVGuptaHSPathakHLadhaJK. Long-term yield trend and sustainability of rainfed soybean–wheat system through farmyard manure application in a sandy loam soil of the Indian Himalayas. Biol Fertility Soils. (2007) 43:271–80.

  • Google Scholar

• 97

  BeheraUKSharmaARPandeyHN. Sustaining productivity of wheat–soybean cropping system through integrated nutrient management practices on the Vertisols of central India. Plant Soil. (2007) 297:185–99.

  • Google Scholar

• 98

  RudrappaLPurakayasthaTJSinghDBhadrarayS. Long-term manuring and fertilization effects on soil organic carbon pools in a Typic Haplustept of semi-arid sub-tropical India. Soil Tillage Res. (2006) 88:180–92.

  • Google Scholar

• 99

  SharmaKLMandalUKSrinivasK. Long-term manuring and fertilization effects on soil quality and carbon sequestration in semi-arid tropical Alfisols. Soil Tillage Res. (2005) 88:180–92.

  • Google Scholar

• 100

  VenugopalanMVPundarikakshudR. Long-term fertilizer experiment in Cotton based cropping in rainfed Vertisols. Proceedings of National Workshop on Long-term Soil Fertility Management through Integrated Plant Nutrient Supply. Bhopal: Indian Institute of Soil Science (1998), 335.

  • Google Scholar

• 101

  VineelaCWaniSPSrinivasaraoCHPadmajaBVittalKPR. Microbial properties of soils as affected by cropping and nutrient management practices in several long-term manurial experiments in the semi-arid tropics of India. Appl Soil Ecology. (2008) 40:165–73.

  • Google Scholar

• 102

  MurugappanVSanthyPSelviDPerumalR. Long term fertilizer experiment with intensive cropping on an inceptisol. In: Proceedings of National Workshop on Long-term Soil Fertility Management through Integrated Plant Nutrient Supply. Bhopal: Indian Institute of Soil Science, (1998). 335.

  • Google Scholar

• 103

  WangQLiYAlvaA. Cropping systems to improve carbon sequestration for mitigation of climate change. J Environ Prot. (2010) 1:207. doi: 10.4236/jep.2010.13025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  DoelmanJCStehfestEvan VuurenDPTabeauAHofAFBraakhekkeMCet al. Afforestation for climate change mitigation: potentials, risks and trade‐offs. Global Change Biol. (2020) 26:1576–91. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14887

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  SinghAUnnikrishnanSNaikNDuvvuriK. Role of India's forests in climate change mitigation through the CDM and REDD+. J Environ Plann Manage. (2013) 56:61–87. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-8846-4_22

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  LalR. Sequestering carbon and increasing productivity by conservation agriculture. J Soil Water Conserv. (2015) 70:55A–62A. doi: 10.2489/jswc.70.3.55a

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  ParteyST. The role of agroforestry in soil carbon sequestration. Agric Ecosyst Environ. (2017) 237:1–10. doi: 10.33545/2618060X.2025.v8.i2e.2592

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  SileshiGWMafongoyaPLNathAJ. Agroforestry systems for improving nutrient recycling and soil fertility on degraded lands. In: Agroforestry for Degraded Landscapes: Recent Advances and Emerging Challenges. (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), (2020). 1:225–53.

  • Google Scholar

• 109

  KumarSMeenaRSLalRSingh YadavGMitranTMeenaBLet al. Role of legumes in soil carbon sequestration. In: Legumes for soil health and sustainable management. Singapore: Springer Singapore, (2018). 109–38.

  • Google Scholar

• 110

  GuptaRKKumarVSharmaKRButtarTSSinghGMirG. Carbon sequestration potential through agroforestry: a review. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. (2017) 6:211–20. doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2017.608.029

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  SinghYPSinghGBSharmaDKAroraS. Evaluation of Different Agro-forestry Systems for their Effect on Alkali Soils. J Indian Soc Soil Science. (2017) 64:377–84.

  • Google Scholar

• 112

  BeheraMD. Agroforestry systems for carbon sequestration in India. Agrofor Syst. (2018) 92:117–32.

  • Google Scholar

• 113

  RavindranathNHChaturvediRKMurthyIK. Forest conservation, afforestation and reforestation in India: Implications for forest carbon stocks. Curr Sci. (2008) 95:216–22. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24103048 (Accessed July 25, 2008).

  • Google Scholar

• 114

  RoyA. Harnessing the power of India’s forests for climate change mitigation. In: Orf Issue Brief No, vol. 420. India, Observer Research Foundation (2020).

  • Google Scholar

• 115

  PathakHBhatiaAJainN. Greenhouse gas emission from Indian agriculture: trends, mitigation and policyNeeds. In: Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, Xvi+39. (New Delhi: Centre for Environment Science and Climate Resilient Agriculture Indian Agricultural Research Institute) (2014).

  • Google Scholar

• 116

  MeeraAVJohnJSudhaBSajeenaAJacobDBindhuJS. Greenhouse gas emission from integrated farming system models: a comparative study. Green Farming. (2019) 10:696–701. doi: 10.37322/greenfarming/10.6.2019.696-701

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  ShahT. Taming the anarchy: groundwater governance in south asia. In: Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, and International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Routledge, An RFF Press book. (2009). Available online at: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/36566.

  • Google Scholar

• 118

  PathakHBhatiaAJainNAggarwalPK. Greenhouse gas emission and mitigation in Indian agriculture – A review. In: SinghB, editor. ING Bulletins on Regional Assessmentof Reactive Nitrogen, Bulletin No. 19. SCON-ING, New Delhi (2010). p. i–iv.

  • Google Scholar

• 119

  MalhiGSKaurMKaushikP. Impact of climate change on agriculture and its mitigation strategies: a review. Sustainability. (2021) 13:1318. doi: 10.3390/su13031318

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  GartaulaHSapkotaTBKhatri-ChhetriAPrasadGBadstueL. Gendered impacts of greenhouse gas mitigation options for rice cultivation in India. Clim Change. (2020) 163:1045–63. doi: 10.1007/s10584-020-02941-w

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  TiradoRGopikrishnaSRKrishnanRSmithP. Greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential from fertilizer manufacture and application in India. Int J Agric Sustainability. (2010) 8:176–85. doi: 10.3763/ijas.2009.0422

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  SusilawatiHLSetyantoPKartikawatiRSutriadiMT. (2019). “ The opportunity of direct seeding to mitigate greenhouse gas emission from paddy rice field”, in: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. (Bristol, United Kingdom: Institute of Physics Publishing). 393.

  • Google Scholar

• 123

  TesfaiMMoedIGreipslandI. Integrated soil management practices: adaptation and mitigation to climate change. In: Climate Change and Agricultural Development. (London: Taylor & Francis Group). (2016). p. 177–200.

  • Google Scholar

• 124

  WangJPanXLiuYZhangXXiongZ. Effects of biochar amendment in two soils on greenhouse gas emissions and crop production. Plant Soil. (2012) 360:287–98.

  • Google Scholar

• 125

  LakshmananARajendranKThavaprakaashN. Green manuring and integrated nutrient management improve soil organic carbon sequestration and crop productivity in rice-based cropping systems. (2015a).

  • Google Scholar

• 126

  FlynnHC. Agriculture and climate change: an agenda for negotiation in copenhagen. The role of nutrient management in mitigation. In: International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington DC, USA, International Food Policy Research Institute (2009).

  • Google Scholar

• 127

  SapkotaTBJatMLRanaDSKhatri-ChhetriAJatHSBijarniyaDet al. Crop nutrient management using Nutrient Expert improves yield, increases farmers’ income and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Sci Rep. (2021) 11:1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-79883-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  MajumdarDKumarSPathakHJainMCKumarU. Reducing nitrous oxide emission from an irrigated rice field of North India with nitrification inhibitors. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. (2000) 81(3):163–9. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00156-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  MajumdarDKumarSPathakHJainMCKumarU. Reducing nitrous oxide emission from an irrigated rice field of North India with nitrification inhibitors. Agric Ecosyst Environ. (2000) 81:163–71. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8809(00)00156-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  MohanrajJLakshmananASubramanianKS. Nano-zeolite amendment to minimize greenhouse gas emission in rice soil. J Environ Nanotechnol. (2017) 6:73–6. doi: 10.13074/jent.2017.09.173272

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  BhatiaAPathakHJainNSinghPKTomerR. Greenhouse gas mitigation in rice–wheat system with leaf colour chart-based urea application. Environ Monit Assess. (2012) 184:3095–107. doi: 10.1007/s10661-011-2174-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  JainNBhatiaAPathakH. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from Indian rice paddies, agricultural soils and crop residue burning. Greenhouse Gases: Sci Technology. (2013) 3:196–211. doi: 10.1002/ghg.1339

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  SubramanianKSManikandanAThirunavukkarasuMRahaleCS. Nano-fertilizers for balanced crop nutrition. Nanotechnologies Food Agric. (2015), 69–80. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14024-7_3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  RavikumarCGanapathyMSenthilvalavanPManivannanR. Integrated nutrient management - promising way to reduce carbon dioxide and methane emission in flooded rice ecosystem: A review. J Appl Natural Sci. (2021) 13:385–95. doi: 10.31018/jans.v13i1.2570

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  GadiRKulshresthaUCSarkarAKGargSCParasharDC. Emissions of SO₂ and NO_x from biofuels in India. Tellus B: Chem Phys Meteorology. (2003) 55:787–95. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0889.2003.00065.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  SrinivasaraoCSubha LakshmiCKunduSRanjith KumarGManasaRRakeshS. Integrated nutrient management strategies for rainfed agro-ecosystems of India. Indian J Fertilisers. (2020) 16:344–61.

  • Google Scholar

• 137

  SmithPOlesenJE. Synergies between the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change in agriculture. J Agric Sci. (2010) 148:543–52. doi: 10.1017/s0021859610000341

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar