European Journal of Sustainable Agroecosystems

Background: The use of diversified cropping systems, which encompass various methods such as crop rotation, intercropping, cover cropping, and agroforestry, has been promoted as an alternative to resource-intensive monocultures in the context of climate resiliency. Agrifood activities have been shown to account for almost one-third of such human-induced emissions, while farm-level crop and livestock production is estimated to produce around half of this total amount. As a result, the investigation of the overall carbon performance of diversified cropping systems has gained the attention of researchers and policymakers alike.
Objective: The purpose of this paper is to review published studies from different sources and present information on the carbon footprint of diversified vs. conventional monoculture cropping methods from 2015 to 2026.
Sources of literature: A systematic search of databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and SpringerLink, as well as reports prepared by international organizations such as the FAO and the IPCC yielded 612 papers. Out of that number, only 78 studies manifested certain characteristics and 61 of them represented core primary evidence.
Main discoveries: Literature shows that intercropping of legumes and cereals using rotation-based diversification as well as integration with agro forestry helps reduce carbon footprint of yield and economic output when compared to monoculture since it has low use of synthetic nitrogen, high buildup of soil organic carbon and better land-equivalent ratios. However, impact is very much context sensitive: there are rotation systems that cause bigger carbon emissions per area than monoculture taking into account N2O emissions, and no-till farming combined with diversification does not necessarily win when full life cycle assessment is conducted.
Research gaps: Some of the significant research gaps that still remain are inconsistent definitions of system boundaries among carbon footprint studies, brief trial lengths that are unable to observe SOC equilibria, low visibility of smallholder and tropical rainfed practices, as well as negligible use of remote sensing technology or digital means for monitoring, assessment, and verification (MARV).
Conclusion: It can be inferred that diversified agricultural methods are more likely to help in reducing agricultural carbon footprints, yet they are not necessarily considered the best strategy. However, larger-scale implementation of this approach can only be achieved through collaboration.