Managing for Climate and Production Goals on Croplands
- Hakan Sener
- 3 days ago
- 3 min read
A 2025 study finds cropland climate solutions offer limited win–wins, as GHG cuts often come at the cost of lower crop yields.
A new global modeling study led by Shelby McClelland and colleagues evaluates whether natural climate solutions (NCS) on croplands can simultaneously deliver greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation and crop yield benefits. The answer: not always.
Using high-resolution process-based simulations on over 400 million hectares of cropland across five global regions, the authors found that win–win outcomes are not the norm. While practices such as cover cropping and no tillage can reduce emissions or boost yields, they often involve trade-offs that challenge the assumption of universally beneficial outcomes.
Key Findings: Tension Between Climate Mitigation and Yield Goals
Grass Cover Crops with No Tillage: Strong GHG Cuts, but Yield Losses
GHG reduction potential: 32.6 Pg CO₂e by 2050; 41.3 Pg CO₂e by 2100.
Yield impact: Cumulative yield loss of 4.8 Pg by 2050; 8.2 Pg by 2100.
These systems are particularly effective in developed countries but often lead to reduced food production—a key sustainability concern.
Legume Cover Crops with No Tillage: Better Balance but Mixed Results
GHG reduction: 30.3 Pg CO₂e by 2050, dropping to 12.9 Pg by 2100.
Yield impact: Increased yields of 6.2 Pg by 2050 and 19.3 Pg by 2100.
However, this approach results in higher N₂O emissions over time in some regions, undermining long-term mitigation.
Regional and Soil Differences Matter
Favorable outcomes are more likely on nitrogen-poor, high-clay soils, and in maize or wheat systems over soybean.
Irrigated systems tend to outperform rainfed ones, and soil properties -not just climate- drive results.
Trade-Offs Are Spatially and Temporally Complex
While some NCS practices perform well regionally or in the short term, longer-term effects often reduce their climate benefit. For instance, high initial gains in soil carbon are offset by growing N₂O emissions, particularly in tropical and developing regions.
Efforts to maximize only one goal—either GHG mitigation or crop yield—often result in poor outcomes for the other. When only Pareto-optimal strategies (that do not worsen either metric) are considered, mitigation potential drops by up to 98% compared to maximum theoretical scenarios.
Implications: Climate Solutions Must Be Context-Specific
There is no universal NCS solution for croplands. Practices need to be tailored by crop, soil, region, and long-term goals.
When both food production and climate mitigation are priorities, trade-offs must be made explicit to avoid unintended consequences such as land-use change.
Cover cropping and reduced tillage offer modest but valuable climate benefits, particularly when sustained over time—but they’re not a silver bullet.
Better Cropland Management Helps, But It’s Not Enough
This study offers one of the most detailed global evaluations of cropland-based natural climate solutions to date, and it sends a clear message: agroecological practices can support both yield and climate goals, but not universally or equally. Optimizing for one usually comes at the expense of the other.
With global food demand projected to grow by over 50% in the coming decades, finding spatially explicit, balanced adoption strategies will be key. The role of cropland NCS should be seen as complementary—a part of food system decarbonization, but far from the full solution.
Sign up for our newsletter or connect with us on social media to stay up-to-date with our latest posts and permaculture inspiration.
Explore our inspiring series and posts:
Love the post? Share it with your circle, inspire your people.