Regenerative and Conservation Agriculture as Climate Solutions: Evidence for Soil Carbon Gains and Emission Reductions

Aakash Kumar Saini *

Division of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, ICAR- Indian Institute of Soil Science, Bhopal-462038, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Babu Lal Gurjar

Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, School of Agriculture, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, India.

Arijit Chowdhuri

Division of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, ICAR- Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India.

Swetapadma Jena

Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, College of Agriculture, Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar, India.

Abinash Kabi

Department of Soil Science and Agricultural chemistry, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.

Ashwini Yadav

Division of Environmental Science, ICAR- Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India.

Gourav Sudan

Division of Soil Science, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu, Jammu & Kashmir, India.

Narayan Kakde

Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth (VNMKV), Parbhani, India.

Arkit Saha

Visva-Bharati University, Shantiniketan, West Bengal, India.

Hemant Singh Raghuwanshi

Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), India.

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.


Abstract

Regenerative and conservation agriculture are widely promoted as “climate-smart” strategies that can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while sustaining food production. However, expectations for agricultural soils as a major negative-emission technology remain contested. The central issue is whether these practices can reliably increase soil organic carbon (SOC), reduce greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, and support farm livelihoods. This review synthesizes emerging evidence on the impacts of regenerative and conservation agriculture on SOC stocks, GHG balances, and farmer livelihoods. It clarifies definitions and conceptual overlaps between the two approaches, linking them to contemporary understanding of SOC dynamics and carbon accounting. The analysis draws on recent global meta-analyses and long-term experiments to evaluate practices such as reduced tillage, cover crops, diversified rotations, organic amendments, agroforestry, and improved grazing systems. These practices typically raise SOC in surface soils and can improve yields and resilience, but the size of the effect varies strongly with climate, soil type, baseline management and time horizon. Evidence on net GHG outcomes is more mixed: while practices such as reduced tillage and cover cr ops often lower CO₂ emissions from fuel use and erosion, their effects on nitrous oxide (N₂O) are highly variable, and increases in N₂O can offset part of the climate benefit from SOC accrual. We discuss how these biophysical outcomes intersect with farmer incentives, equity considerations and the integrity of rapidly expanding soil carbon credit schemes. Finally, we identify key research and policy priorities for aligning regenerative and conservation agriculture with robust climate mitigation, including improved monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV), better integration of yield and risk metrics, and governance frameworks that prioritise “carbon for soils, not soils for carbon.

Keywords: Regenerative agriculture, conservation agriculture, soil organic carbon, greenhouse-gas emissions, carbon markets, climate-smart agriculture, cover crops, reduced tillage


How to Cite

Saini, Aakash Kumar, Babu Lal Gurjar, Arijit Chowdhuri, Swetapadma Jena, Abinash Kabi, Ashwini Yadav, Gourav Sudan, Narayan Kakde, Arkit Saha, and Hemant Singh Raghuwanshi. 2025. “Regenerative and Conservation Agriculture As Climate Solutions: Evidence for Soil Carbon Gains and Emission Reductions”. Asian Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 11 (4):472-84. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajsspn/2025/v11i4618.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.