Carbon farming has moved from a soil-management concept to a prominent climate-policy proposition, yet the agronomic value of building soil organic carbon and the credibility of soil carbon as a durable climate-removal pathway are not identical questions. This critical narrative review evaluates carbon farming as an integrated strategy for soil carbon sequestration, nutrient management and climate resilience. The literature was selected from accessible scholarly indexes and disciplinary databases, supplemented by citation chaining and authoritative source verification, with emphasis on field experiments, long-term trials, meta-analyses, mechanistic soil-carbon studies and work on measurement, reporting and verification. Evidence indicates that practices which increase carbon inputs, reduce avoidable carbon losses and improve biological nutrient cycling can rebuild depleted soil organic carbon, particularly where initial stocks are low and management constraints are substantial. Cover crops, diversified rotations, organic amendments, agroforestry and context-appropriate biochar generally show stronger or more interpretable carbon benefits than simple claims based on reduced tillage alone. Benefits for nutrient retention, aggregation, rooting conditions and yield stability are plausible and often observed, but vary with climate, soil texture and mineralogy, baseline fertility, water regime, residue availability and the duration of management. Carbon gains are finite, reversible and vulnerable to sampling artefacts; transferring manure or crop residues between locations can also create apparent project gains without equivalent net atmospheric removal. Credible carbon farming therefore requires whole-system greenhouse-gas accounting, explicit treatment of additionality and permanence, consistent soil-depth and bulk-density protocols, and conservative crediting. The strongest case for carbon farming is consequently not as a universal substitute for emissions reduction, but as a geographically targeted form of soil restoration that can deliver climate mitigation alongside agronomic and resilience co-benefits when carbon accounting is rigorous and nutrient trade-offs are managed.
Suneel Kumar, Devesh Pathak, Navneet Kumar Mishra et al.· Archives of Current Research...· 0 citations
The widespread reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides since the Green Revolution has secured unprecedented agricultural productivity but at considerable cost to environmental integrity and human health. This comprehensive evaluation critically examines plant-derived botanical pesticides as sustainable alternatives, moving beyond simplistic "natural equals safe" assumptions to provide a nuanced evidence-based assessment. Botanicals—including neem oil (azadirachtin), pyrethrins, essential oils, and emerging compounds—offer several genuine advantages: rapid biodegradation (half-lives of hours to days for most compounds), selective toxicity targeting arthropod-specific physiological processes (ecdysone antagonism, octopamine receptor modulation), diverse modes of action that impede resistance evolution, and favorable mammalian safety profiles. However, the review identifies five critical caveats frequently overlooked in promotional narratives. First, persistence varies dramatically by compound and soil context; rotenone and nicotine exhibit half-lives of 28–60 days, approaching synthetic pesticide persistence, while rapid degradation of pyrethrins and essential oils necessitates frequent reapplication. Second, non-target effects on beneficial organisms—including reduced parasitization rates in Trichogramma wasps (30–60%), impaired foraging and learning in honeybees, suppressed soil dehydrogenase activity (20–40%), and earthworm reproductive toxicity—though generally milder than synthetics, are not negligible. Third, the "land use dilemma" emerges when scaling production: one kilogram of azadirachtin requires approximately 0.5 hectares of neem plantation, raising questions about displacing food crops or natural habitats. Fourth, life cycle assessments reveal that energy-intensive extraction (5–10 kWh per liter of essential oil) and synthetic co-formulants (constituting 50–95% of formulated products) can undermine claimed environmental benefits. Fifth, regulatory frameworks designed for single-molecule synthetics are ill-suited to complex, variable botanical extracts. Emerging innovations—green nanoemulsions enabling controlled release and extended residual activity (14 days vs. 2–3 days for conventional formulations), synergistic consortia combining botanicals with microbial biocontrol agents (achieving 30–50% greater efficacy than either alone), and valorization of agro-industrial waste streams (citrus peels, oilseed cakes, spent distillation biomass)—offer transformative pathways to overcome current limitations. The review concludes that botanicals, when properly formulated, integrated within IPM frameworks, and evaluated through context-specific life cycle and ecotoxicological assessment, represent a vastly preferable alternative to synthetic pesticides, though they are not a universal panacea. Responsible adoption requires moving beyond binary "natural vs. synthetic" thinking toward nuanced, systems-based decision-making that accounts for soil conditions, non-target species sensitivity, production footprints, and formulation chemistry.
Prem Shanker, M. Ramasamy, B. Birari et al.· Oriental Journal of Chemistr...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
