Impact of land use change and climate on the Brazilian Amazon: a review on carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions

 

Lorena Maués Moraes1 ; Jorge Cardoso de Azevedo1 ; Nauara Moura Lage Filho2

João Victor Costa de Oliveira 1 ; Natan Lima Abreu3 ; Francisco Paulo Amaral Junior3

Thiago Carvalho da Silva1 ; Ana Cláudia Ruggieri3 ; Cristian Faturi4 ; Aníbal Coutinho do Rêgo5 *

 

1 Federal Rural University of Amazonia (UFRA), Belém, Pará, Brazil.

2 Federal University of Roraima (UFRR), Boa Vista, Brazil.

3 São Paulo State University (UNESP), Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.

4 Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Palmeira das Missões, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

5 Federal University of Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil.

 

* Corresponding author: anibalcr@ufc.br (A. C. do Rêgo).

 

Received: 21 March 2025. Accepted: 17 August 2025. Published: 1 September 2025.

 

 

Abstract

Historically, land-use changes in the Brazilian Amazon, such as the conversion of forests to pastures, have significantly impacted carbon and nitrogen cycles, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and potentially compromising environmental sustainability. This review explores the effects of these changes on soil carbon and nitrogen stocks, emphasizing the role of sustainable practices and public policies in mitigating environmental impacts. Findings indicate that, although forest-to-pasture conversion may reduce soil organic carbon stocks by up to 11.3%, practices such as agroforestry systems, sustainable pasture management, and crop-livestock-forestry integration (CLFI) have the potential to reverse these effects by promoting carbon sequestration and soil conservation. Public policies such as the Low Carbon Agriculture Plan (ABC Plan) and the Amazon Fund are highlighted as essential pillars for sustainable development in the region. It is concluded that the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, integrated with robust environmental policies and technological innovation, can transform the Amazon into a global model of balance between economic development and environmental conservation. Future studies should prioritize integrated assessments of carbon stocks, gas emissions, and socioeconomic indicators to support more effective and regionally adapted public policies.

 

Keywords: agriculture; environmental governance; livestock; soil carbon; sustainable practices; tropical soils climate.

 

 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17268/sci.agropecu.2025.051

 

 

Cite this article:

Moraes, L. M., de Azevedo, J. C., Filho, N. M. L., de Oliveira, J. V. C., Abreu, N. L., Junior, F. P. A., da Silva, T. C., Ruggieri, A. C., Faturi, C., & do Rêgo, A. C. (2025). Impact of land use change and climate on the Brazilian Amazon: a review on carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions. Scientia Agropecuaria, 16(4), 671-688.


 

1. Introduction

 

Land use changes are among the main drivers of global climate change. They affect essential biogeo­chemical cycles, such as those of carbon and nitro­gen, and intensify greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (IPCC, 2019; Gasser et al., 2020). These changes have profound consequences for tropical ecosystems, particularly in the Brazilian Amazon, which plays a critical role as a global climate regulator and harbors one of the planet’s greatest biodiversity (Gatti et al., 2021).

The process of aboveground biomass removal from tropical forests worldwide represents a net efflux of 425 Tg C year⁻¹, with 76.4% originating from tropical forests located in the Americas (Baccini et al., 2017). This conversion of forests into agricultural lands and pastures alters the ecological functionality of the re­gion, resulting in significant GHG emissions and losses of soil carbon and nitrogen. By 2024, it is es­timated that approximately 803,000 km² of the Am­azon have been deforested, consolidating the so-called “Arc of Deforestation”, a region already rec­ognized for concentrating the greatest anthropo­genic pressures, stretching from eastern Maranhão to Acre, through Pará, Mato Grosso, and Rondônia (SEEG, 2022; Domingues et al., 2020; INPE, 2025).

In addition to anthropogenic pressures, the unique climatic conditions of the Amazon, characterized by high humidity, elevated temperatures, intense pre­cipitation regimes, and a predominance of soil or­ganic carbon, increase the vulnerability of the region’s soils (Sharififar et al., 2023). These conditions accelerate the decomposition of organic matter and promote nutrient leaching, amplifying the impacts of land-use change and aggravating environmental degradation (Albert et al., 2023).

Historically, logging has been among the main driv­ers of deforestation in the Amazon. In many cases, previously logged areas were converted to other land uses, such as cattle ranching, due to its lower initial cost and its role in securing land ownership. However, cattle ranching, when combined with sus­tainable management practices, has the potential to play an important role in environmental mitigation (Bogaerts et al., 2017; Silva et al., 2024).

Strategies such as rotational grazing, crop-livestock-forestry integration (CLFI), and the use of forage crop mixtures can minimize or even reverse soil or­ganic carbon losses by promoting carbon seques­tration and contributing to the recovery of degraded areas. These approaches allow livestock productivity to be aligned with environmental conservation, highlighting the importance of integrated strategies to mitigate climate impacts in the region (Azevedo et al., 2024; Abagandura et al., 2024; Souza et al., 2024).

Although there are several reviews on the impacts of climate change and land use in different regions and ecosystems of Brazil, studies that address the specific context of the Brazilian Amazon in an inte­grated and up-to-date manner are still rare. For in­stance, previous reviews have focused on national-scale climate projections, with emphasis on temper­ature and precipitation trends (Marengo et al., 2018), on the sustainability of agricultural production in the Amazon region (Bueno et al., 2021), and on the car­bon sequestration potential of agricultural systems in the Cerrado biome (Oliveira et al., 2023).

Moreover, reviews such as those by Cotrufo & Lavallee (2022), Chien & Krumins (2023), and Sharififar et al. (2023) offer comprehensive syntheses on global mechanisms of organic and inorganic car­bon storage in soils, as well as the effects of climate change on these processes. However, there is still a lack of recent reviews that articulate these perspec­tives with the current reality of the Brazilian Amazon, especially after 2020, a period marked by significant political, socioeconomic, and environmental trans­formations, such as the expansion of deforestation and the weakening of environmental policies.

In this context, this article aims to review the impacts of land-use changes and climatic conditions on soil carbon and nitrogen stocks, as well as on GHG emis­sions in the Brazilian Amazon. Additionally, it discusses sustainable management practices, such as agroforestry systems and the restoration of de­graded areas, assessing their potential to mitigate environmental impacts and promote sustainable de­velopment. Finally, future directions for scientific research and the formulation of integrated public policies are presented, reinforcing the strategic role of the Amazon in addressing global climate change.

 

2. Land use changes and environmental impacts in the Brazilian Amazon

2.1 History of landscape transformations in the Amazon

The transformation of the Amazonian landscape began during the colonial period, particularly with the “drogas do sertão” cycle between the 17th and 18th centuries (Figure 1), when the region started supplying the European market with extractive products such as Brazil nuts, resins, oils, and spices (Gomes, 2018). During the same period, extractivism and the semi-domesticated cultivation of native cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) represented the first agricultural activity of significant economic relevance in the Amazon, lasting until the rise of cacao cultiva­tion in southern Bahia (Schroth et al., 2016).

At the end of the 19th century, the rubber boom (Hevea brasiliensis) marked the peak of the extrac­tive economy in the Amazon, positioning the region as the world’s main supplier of natural latex until 1910, when the introduction of rubber trees in South­east Asia led to the collapse of this cycle (Gomes, 2018). Although rubber extraction caused relatively limited impacts on forest cover, the subsequent ag­ricultural expansion brought more lasting changes in land use, contributing to the transformation of the Amazon biome (Lapola et al., 2023).

In the 1960s and 1970s, structural public policies such as the National Integration Plan and the Amazon Development Plan intensified land-use changes. Aimed at integrating the Amazon region with the rest of the country, these initiatives promoted tax in­centives, subsidized rural credit, and infrastructure projects, such as the construction of the Trans-Amazonian highway (Watrin et al., 2022). Although these policies boosted the economy, they over­looked environmental sustainability, resulting in un­controlled deforestation, land conflicts, and negative impacts on traditional communities and small farmers (Arruda et al., 2023).

According to estimates from the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals Estimation System (SEEG), over the past three decades, the land-use change, and forestry sector have been the main driver of deforestation. During this period, this sector accounted for 58% of national emissions, followed by agriculture, which contributed 21%. When analyzing Brazil’s biomes, the land-use change, and forestry sector is responsible for 47% of emissions. Thus, both legal and illegal logging can be considered the primary drivers of deforestation.

Cattle ranching is frequently cited as one of the main drivers of deforestation in the Amazon (Danielson & Rodrigues, 2022; Lapola et al., 2023). Since the 1980s, it is estimated that approximately 68% of deforested areas have been converted into pastures, although not always immediately (Danielson & Rodrigues, 2022). Many of these areas were initially abandoned and only later converted to agricultural use, often by actors different from those responsible for the original deforestation (Lapola et al., 2023).

In addition to cattle ranching, practices such as slash-and-burn agriculture and low-technology farming systems have also contributed to deforesta­tion, especially among smallholder farmers. These land-use practices, characterized by low productivity and intensive use of fire for land preparation, play a significant role in the early stages of land occupa­tion. Shifting cultivation, often practiced with short fallow cycles, accelerates forest fragmentation and requires the constant clearing of new areas (Rodrigues et al., 2024).

In the 1990s, the growing global demand for soy and logging activities intensified forest fragmentation (Lapola et al., 2023). Consequently, forest cover loss became concentrated in the Legal Amazon, an area defined by the Brazilian government in 1953, en­compassing all states in the North Region, as well as Mato Grosso and part of Maranhão. Despite its orig­inal purpose of promoting sustainable development, the unregulated expansion of agricultural frontiers and intensive logging consolidated the so-called "Arc of Deforestation" (Domingues et al., 2020; Assis et al., 2022).

 

This region exhibits high rates of deforestation and forest degradation, being responsible for significant carbon emissions (Figure 2). Data from PRODES in­dicate that, in 2024, cumulative deforestation in the Legal Amazon reached 6,268 km², representing a 22% reduction compared to the previous year (INPE, 2025). However, it is estimated that approximately 38% of the remaining forests in the region show some degree of degradation, with annual emissions ranging from 0.05 to 0.20 petagrams of carbon (Pg C), values comparable to or exceeding direct defor­estation emissions (Lapola et al., 2023).

 

Habitat fragmentation, edge effects, forest fires, and extreme droughts increase the environmental vul­nerability of this region. As a result, the “Arc of De­forestation” faces growing pressures that demand urgent mitigation actions. Key strategies include ef­fective monitoring, the strengthening of public poli­cies, and the implementation of sustainable prac­tices that promote environmental recovery (Domingues et al., 2020; Pereira, 2022).

 

Despite the critical scenario, the “Arc of Deforesta­tion” also represents a strategic opportunity to pro­mote effective public policies that reconcile environ­mental conservation, social inclusion, and economic development. Integrated strategies such as continu­ous monitoring, incentives for sustainable land man­agement, and reforestation can transform degraded areas into productive and environmental assets, with direct benefits for local communities (Santos et al., 2019; Badari et al., 2020; Gomes et al., 2024).


 

 

 

Figure 1. Timeline of key historical milestones in land-use transformation in the Brazilian Amazon from 1500 to 2024. Adapted from Schroth et al. (2016); Gomes et al. (2018); Chambouleyron & Ibáñez-Bonillo (2019); Gries et al. (2019); Amaral et al. (2019); Domingues et al. (2020); Winkler et al. (2021); Danielson & Rodrigues (2022); Watrin et al. (2022); Arruda et al. (2023); Albert et al. (2023); Lapola et al. (2023).

 

Figure 2. Representation of forested, non-forested, and deforested areas in the Brazilian Amazon up to the 2024, characterizing the "Deforestation Arc of the Amazon” (Prepared using the 2024 database from the Satellite Monitoring Project of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon, PRODES).

 


In this context, initiatives such as the sustainable management of socio-biodiversity products, refor­estation with native species, the intensification of ag­roforestry systems, and sustainable livestock farming stand out as promising solutions to balance conser­vation and productivity. Livestock, a central activity for the economy of many municipalities in the re­gion, holds great potential for improvement through practices such as pasture recovery and integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems (ICLF), which con­tribute to increased productivity, forest conserva­tion, and the empowerment of small and medium-sized rural producers (Badari et al., 2020; Bueno et al., 2021; Lapola et al., 2023; Ramineh et al., 2023).

 

2.2. Economic potential and sustainable practices

In addition to its ecological value, the Brazilian Am­azon also holds significant productive potential. De­spite the challenges related to land use, such as the conversion of forests into agricultural areas, the re­gion offers concrete opportunities for sustainable practices that reconcile environmental conservation, social inclusion, and economic viability (Table 1). The “Arc of Deforestation,” although characterized by in­tense pressure, also reveals strategic areas where vulnerability can be transformed into productive and ecological recovery (Bueno et al., 2021; Gomes et al., 2024).

Sociobiodiversity products, such as guaraná (Paullinia cupana), buriti (Mauritia flexuosa), cacao (Theobroma cacao), and açaí (Euterpe oleracea), illustrate how income generation can be combined with environ-mental preservation, directly benefiting local com-munities (Cunha & Costa, 2020; Gomes et al., 2021). Guaraná, when cultivated sustainably, holds economic and cultural importance for small­holder farmers (Vignoli et al., 2022). Buriti, charac­teristic of floodplain areas, is used in the production of food, cosmetics, and oils, and its cultivation con­tributes to the regeneration of degraded areas (Ibiapina et al., 2022).

 

Cacao and açaí, widely cultivated in agroforestry sys­tems, contribute to the recovery of degraded soils, biodiversity conservation, and income generation, especially in Pará and among riverside communities. Additionally, black pepper (Piper nigrum) demon­strates the integration of traditional practices and techno-logical innovation, establishing Tomé-Açu as a productive and sustainable hub (Cruz & Rocha, 2019; Cunha & Costa, 2020; Paracampo et al., 2022).

 

However, Amazon also hosts agricultural crops with higher environmental impact, such as soybean (Glycine max) and oil palm (Elaeis guineensis). Driven by high global demand, soybean has become one of the main economic activities in the region, requir­ing more sustainable practices (Brito et al., 2021; Bueno et al., 2021). Oil palm, although holding po­tential for economic diversification, often contributes to soil degradation and forest fragmentation due to its unregulated expansion, highlighting the need for proper management (Gomes et al., 2021).


Table 1

Examples of sustainable land-use practices in the Brazilian Amazon and their associated benefits

 

Sustainable practice or product

Production system

Main benefit

Reference

Guaraná

(Paullinia cupana)

Traditional cultivation

Income and cultural value for local farmers

Cunha & Costa (2020); Vignoli et al. (2022)

Buriti

(Mauritia flexuosa)

Extractivism; agroindustrial use

Multiple uses and floodplain restoration

Ibiapina et al. (2022)

Cacao

(Theobroma cacao)

Agroforestry system (AFS)

Soil recovery and biodiversity

Schroth et al. (2015); Gomes et al. (2021);

Açaí

(Euterpe oleracea)

Agroforestry system (AFS)

Income, conservation, and social inclusion

Paracampo et al. (2022);

Gomes et al. (2024)

Black pepper

(Piper nigrum)

Integrated agriculture

Traditional knowledge combined with innovation

Cruz & Rocha (2019); Cunha & Costa (2020)

Soybean

(Glycine max)

Intensive agriculture

High profitability; requires sustainable practices

Brito et al. (2021);

Bueno et al. (2021)

Oil palm

(E. guineensis Jacq.)

Industrial perennial cultivation

Economic potential; risk if poorly managed

Gomes et al. (2021)

Sustainable livestock

Integrated systems

High productivity without land expansion; natural resource conservation

Bueno et al. (2021); Lapola et al. (2023); Ramineh et al. (2023)


In addition to agricultural and extractive crops, live­stock farming holds a strategic position in the Ama­zonian economy, serving as the productive base for many municipalities. The sector has expanded its sustainable potential through practices such as the restoration of already deforested areas and crop-livestock-forestry integration (CLFI), which enhances productivity, preserves natural resources, and strengthens the livelihoods of small and medium-sized farmers without the need to clear new land (Bueno et al., 2021; Lapola et al., 2023; Ramineh et al., 2023).

Understanding the climatic, ecological, and soci­ocultural specificities of the Amazon is essential for adapting agricultural management strategies to the local context. Factors such as ecosystem diversity, rainfall regimes, soil types, and traditional livelihoods directly influence the effectiveness of sustainable practices. This integrated approach enables the re­gion to continue playing a crucial role in global cli­mate regulation, establishing itself as a model of de­velopment that combines environmental conserva­tion, social inclusion, and economic viability.

 

3. Climatic conditions and soil dynamics in the Amazon

3.1. Climatic classification of the Amazon

The Brazilian Amazon is widely recognized for its tropical climate, which plays a central role in sustain­ing its biodiverse ecosystems and in global climate regulation (Artaxo et al., 2022). According to the Köppen climate classification system, widely used for its global applicability, the region is predominantly classified as type A climate, characterized by high annual rainfall, elevated temperatures, and high relative humidity (Alvares et al., 2013; Andrade et al., 2017; Cui et al., 2021).

In the state of Pará, three climatic subtypes stand out: humid tropical (Af), tropical monsoon (Am), and tropical with a dry season (Aw). The Af climate features well-distributed rainfall throughout the year, while the Am and Aw climates have distinct rainy and dry seasons. This climatic diversity shapes the distribution of ecosystems and the functioning of natural systems, such as water and energy cycles (Alvares et al., 2013; Andrade et al., 2017; Hoffmann et al., 2018). Table 2 summarizes the main charac-teristics of these climatic subtypes.

 

3.2. Influence of the tropical climate on soil

The climatic conditions of the Amazon, character­ized by high humidity and elevated temperatures, exert a strong influence on the region’s soils. These conditions favor intense microbial activity, which is essential for organic matter decomposition and nu­trient cycling (Flores et al., 2020; Buscardo et al., 2021). However, the same conditions also accelerate leaching and erosion processes, especially in unpro­tected soils, resulting in the loss of fertility in defor­ested or poorly managed areas (Tahat et al., 2020).


 

Table 2

Climatic characteristics of tropical climates in Pará

 

Climate

Temperature range

Annual average temperature

Annual total average precipitation

Rainy season

Dry season

Geographic distribution

Af

24° C – 27 °C

> 26.7 °C

2.000 to 3.000 mm

December to May

Not defined

28.4%

Am

25 °C – 30 °C

25.8 °C – 29 °C

≈ 2.850 mm

December to May

July to August

66.6%

Aw

22 °C – 28 °C

24 °C – 27 °C

≈ 1.600 mm

December to May

June to November

4.9%

Climatic types: humid tropical (Af), tropical monsoon (Am), and tropical with a dry season (Aw). Adapted from Alvares et al. (2013), Andrade et al. (2017), and Hoffmann et al. (2018).


The interaction between tropical climate and human activities can increase soil susceptibility to degrada­tion. In deforested areas, the reduction of vegetation cover exposes the soil to intense rainfall, which can result in the removal of the surface layer rich in or­ganic matter. These processes tend to reduce soil fertility and resilience, especially in areas with inade­quate management, highlighting the importance of conservation practices as a strategy to mitigate these effects (Figure 3) (Hu et al., 2021; Gatti et al., 2021).

Moreover, extreme weather events, such as pro­longed droughts and severe floods, exacerbate the negative impacts on soil dynamics by altering nutri­ent availability and hydrological cycles. When com­bined with degradation caused by deforestation and land conversion, these events underscore the ur­gency of sustainable management practices. Such practices should prioritize the resilience of Amazo­nian soils, reducing their vulnerability to climatic im­pacts and uncontrolled human activities (Deng et al., 2020; Patel et al., 2021).

Understanding these interactions between climate, soil, and human activities is essential for developing integrated strategies that reconcile sustainable land use with environmental conservation. These actions become even more relevant given the crucial role Amazonian soils play as global reservoirs of carbon and nitrogen key elements in climate regulation (Hou, 2021; Wang et al., 2023). Thus, management practices that preserve or enhance these stocks can contribute to mitigating the impacts of climate change and ensuring the functionality of Amazonian ecosystems.

 

4. Soil carbon and nitrogen stocks

 

4.1. Importance of carbon and nitrogen stocks

Carbon and nitrogen cycles are essential for global climate regulation, connecting processes such as respiration, decomposition, and chemical transfor­mations that link soil organic matter (SOM), the at­mosphere, and the oceans (Lal et al., 2021). In the Brazilian Amazon, soils play a crucial role in retaining these elements, due to the region’s high biodiversity and the continuous input of organic residues from native vegetation (Gomes et al., 2019). Although dis­tinct, these cycles are closely interrelated, as nitro­gen transformations through processes such as fixation, mineralization, and denitrification directly influence soil fertility and GHG emissions (Liu et al., 2024).

 

In addition to their role in fertility, soil carbon and nitrogen stocks are fundamental for mitigating cli­mate change. The carbon stored in the soil functions as a critical reservoir, reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, while nitrogen regu­lates primary production and the decomposition of organic matter, balancing the functioning of terres­trial ecosystems. These stocks support both ecosys­tem productivity and their resilience to climate change (Dai et al., 2020).


 

 

Figure 3. Influence of tropical climate and anthropogenic activities on soil dynamics in the Amazon. Adapted from Flores et al., 2020; Deng et al., 2020; Buscardo et al., 2021; Tahat et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2021; Patel et al., 2021; Hou, 2021; Wang et al., 2023.


The vulnerability of these stocks is directly linked to land-use changes and inadequate management practices. Tropical soil, such as those in the Amazon, have a high capacity for carbon storage. However, when forests are converted into agricultural areas or pastures without proper technical criteria, there is a greater risk of degradation and loss of organic matter. On the other hand, studies indicate that well managed pastures can maintain carbon stocks com­parable to those of native forests, demonstrating that sustainable management is crucial for preser-v­ing this ecological function of soils (Midwood et al., 2021; Nagano et al., 2023; Azevedo et al., 2024).

 

4.2. Factors influencing carbon and nitrogen stocks

The stability and dynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks are governed by a combination of phys­ical, chemical, biological, climatic, and mana-gement factors. These factors interact and directly influence the processes of accumulation, decom-position, retention, and loss of these elements within the soil profile. The way these mechanisms operate depends on the intrinsic characteristics of the edaphic envi­ronment and the land-use practices adopted, affect­ing both the magnitude and the stability of stocks over time (Table 3).

Among the physical factors, soil texture plays a cen­tral role. In the Amazon, both clayey and sandy soils are widely distributed, influencing carbon and nitro­gen retention in different ways. Clayey soils, more common in central and eastern areas of the Amazon basin, have a greater capacity for carbon retention due to the high specific surface area of clay particles, which promotes the formation of stable aggregates and reduces the decomposition of organic matter (Flores et al., 2020; Quesada et al., 2020).

In contrast, sandy soils, predominant in transition zones and in eastern Amazonia, exhibit lower stabil­ity and reduced capacity to retain carbon and nitrogen. This is due to their lower specific surface area and limited ability to form stable aggregates, making them more susceptible to erosion and rapid miner­alization of organic matter (de Oliveira et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022). These characteristics result in greater vulnerability to carbon and nitrogen losses, especially in poorly managed agricultural systems (Okebalama et al., 2021).

Climatic conditions, such as temperature and humidity, also exert significant influence. The hot and humid climate typical of the Amazon accelerates the decomposition of soil organic matter (SOM), inten­sifying the release of CO₂ and nitrous oxide (N₂O). In addition, these factors promote the mineralization of particulate organic carbon (POC), which is more susceptible to degradation. In contrast, mineral-associated organic carbon (MAOC) is more stable and plays a critical role in long-term carbon storage (Midwood et al., 2021; Nagano et al., 2023), although it occurs in lower proportions than POC in Amazo­nian soils (Cotrufo & Lavallee, 2022).

Vegetation cover plays a key role in carbon and nitrogen stocks. Native forests have a greater capacity for carbon and nitrogen accumulation due to the constant input of organic residues and the stability of biogeochemical cycles. The conversion to agricul­tural or pasture systems can impact these stocks in variable ways, depending on the practices adopted. Well-managed agricultural systems and pastures have shown potential to conserve or recover part of these stocks (Azevedo et al., 2024; Rego et al., 2023; Zeferino et al., 2023).


 

Table 3

Main physical, climatic, ecological, and management factors influencing soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) stocks in the Amazon region

 

Category

Factor

Effect on C and N stocks

Reference

Physical

Soil texture

Clay retains more C and N; sand increases vulnerability to erosion and mineralization

Flores et al. (2020); Quesada et al. (2020); de Oliveira et al. (2022); Liu et al. (2022)

Topography

Flat areas accumulate organic matter; slopes are prone to erosion

Hu et al. (2021)

Hydrology

Poor drainage promotes C accumulation; well-drained soils enhance mineralization

Ye et al. (2019)

Climatic

Tropical climate

High temperature and humidity accelerate decomposition and GHG emissions

Midwood et al. (2021);  Cotrufo & Lavallee (2022); Nagano et al. (2023)

Extreme events

Droughts and floods destabilize stocks and increase emissions

Li et al. (2024)

Ecological

Carbon forms

POC is more labile and easily degraded; MAOC is more stable but less abundant

Midwood et al. (2021); Cotrufo & Lavallee (2022); Nagano et al. (2023)

Soil biodiversity

Enhances C and N cycling and stabilization; degraded by intensive inputs and machinery

Lal (2019)

Manage-ment

Vegetation cover

Forests enhance stock accumulation; land conversion may conserve or deplete stocks

Azevedo et al. (2024); Rego et al. (2023); Zeferino et al. (2023)

Land use practices

Sustainable management conserves stocks; poor practices increase erosion and nutrient loss

Kooch et al. (2021); Lal (2019)

Notes: C - carbon; N - nitrogen; GHG – greenhouse gases; POC - particulate organic carbon; MAOC - mineral associated organic carbon.


On the other hand, vegetation removal in degraded areas favors erosion and nutri­ent loss (Kooch et al., 2021). Topography also influences this process, as flat areas tend to accumulate more organic matter, while slopes are more prone to soil loss (Hu et al., 2021). Local hydrology regulates SOM decom-position and soil gas emissions. Poorly drained soils tend to accu­mulate carbon, whereas well-drained soils favor its mineralization (Ye et al., 2019). Extreme climate events, such as droughts and floods, can further intensify GHG emissions and reduce stock stability (Li et al., 2024).

Finally, soil biodiversity, including macro and micro­fauna, is crucial for biogeochemical functioning and carbon sequestration. Soil organisms actively partic­ipate in the decomposition of organic matter and carbon stabilization, while inadequate management practices, such as excessive use of machinery and chemical fertilizers, can degrade this biodiversity and compromise long-term carbon stocks (Lal, 2019).

 

4.3. Impacts of land use on carbon and nitrogen stocks

 

Land-use changes directly affect soil carbon and ni­trogen stocks, depending on the type of manage­ment and practices adopted. Under inadequate conditions, such changes contribute to the loss of soil organic matter (SOM) and increased GHG emissions (Ahirwal et al., 2021). Stocks also vary with soil depth, most assessed in the 0–30 cm and 0–100 cm layers, which provide different perspectives on carbon sequestration and nutrient retention capacity (IPCC, 2019; Azevedo et al., 2024).

 

In the Amazon, Azevedo et al. (2024) reported car­bon stocks of 77.1 Mg C ha⁻¹ in native forests and 67.6 Mg C ha⁻¹ in well-managed pastures, with no statistically significant difference, demonstrating that proper management can preserve carbon stocks even in converted areas. In contrast, agricultural sys­tems with bare soil, such as intensive pepper cultiva­tion, showed significantly lower stocks (36.4 Mg C ha⁻¹), reflecting the effects of vegetation removal, soil disturbance, and intensive input use on organic matter decomposition (Hu et al., 2021; Leul et al., 2023).

 

In the Cerrado biome, the conversion of native areas to extensive pastures was associated with a 37.3% reduction in carbon stocks in the 0–30 cm layer, while conversion to rainfed agricultural systems re­sulted in a 30.3% loss. On the other hand, irrigated agricultural systems, when properly managed, pro­moted an increase of up to 34% in carbon stocks, highlighting that land use type, and especially the management practices adopted, can either mitigate or intensify the impacts of land-use conversion (Dionizio et al., 2020).

Agrosilvopastoral and agroforestry systems stand out as viable alternatives for restoring carbon and nitrogen stocks in degraded areas. Lustosa Filho et al. (2024) observed that silvopastoral systems in the Amazon exhibited higher carbon and nitrogen stocks in sandy soils (0–100 cm) compared to con­ventional pastures, while 25% shading in silvopasto­ral systems provided an additional carbon seques­tration of 1.67 Mg C ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹. Moreover, agrosil­vopastoral systems in the Cerrado restored carbon stocks over 20 years, positioning themselves as more sustainable alternatives to extensive pastures (Freitas et al., 2020).

Santos et al. (2019) reported that pasture manage­ment with Urochloa brizantha cultivars (Arapoti and Xaraés) in the Atlantic Forest significantly increased carbon and nitrogen stocks down to 100 cm. In that study, total carbon stocks at 100 cm were 97.3 Mg C ha⁻¹ in native vegetation, 116.2 Mg C ha⁻¹ in the Arapoti cultivar, and 119.4 Mg C ha⁻¹ in the Xaraés cul­tivar. In the 0–30 cm layer, the stocks were 49.3 Mg C ha⁻¹ in native vegetation, 61.2 Mg C ha⁻¹ in Ara­poti, and 66.6 Mg C ha⁻¹ in Xaraés. These results indicate that well-managed pastures can increase soil carbon stocks, partially offsetting losses associated with deforestation. Additionally, sustai-nable intensi­fication practices, such as agricultural intercropping, have shown promise in more fragile biomes such as the Caatinga. Tonucci et al. (2023) demonstrated that agropastoral systems composed of forage spe­cies and crops adapted to the semiarid climate were able to maintain soil carbon stocks nearly equivalent to those of native areas in both the 0 – 30 cm and 0 – 100 cm layers. These findings reinforce the role of integrated practices as viable strategies for soil conservation, GHG emission reduction, and ecological resilience in regions vulnerable to desertification. Similar results were observed in the Amazon by Monteiro et al. (2024), who highlighted the potential of integrated crop-livestock-forestry (ICLF) systems to increase soil carbon and nitrogen stocks, promote more sustainable grain and forage production, and offset GHG emissions. The study showed that, over four years, integrated systems incorporated more than 270 kg N ha⁻¹ and produced three times more edible protein for human consumption compared to conventional systems.

The data presented in Table 4 illustrates the variation in carbon and nitrogen stocks across different land-use systems and soil depths. In general, native forests tend to show the highest stocks, especially in biomes such as the Cerrado and the Amazon.


Table 4

Soil carbon and nitrogen stocks (Mg ha⁻¹) at 0 – 30 cm and 0 – 100 cm depths under different land uses in Brazil

 

Land use

Description

Soil

SCS

SNS

SCS

SNS

Reference

(0 -30 cm)

(0 - 100 cm)

Amazon

Native Forest

Selective logging, no suppression, 25 years

Oxisol

77.1

6.3

137.5

13.8

Azevedo et al. (2024)

Native Forest

Adjacent area to silvopastoral systems used as a reference

Entisol

18.0

-

45.0

-

Lustosa Filho et al. (2024)

Agriculture

Black pepper (Piper nigrum) fields established after pasture (2010 – 2014)

Oxisol

36.4

3.0

63.9

6.0

Azevedo et al. (2024)

Nominal Pasture1

U. brizantha cv. Marandu, established between 1988 – 2007 with burning and cassava cultivation

Oxisol

67.6

5.7

144.8

13.3

Azevedo et al. (2024)

Nominal Pasture1

M. maximus cv. Mombaça + weeds, established in 2013

Entisol

23.0

-

59.0

-

Lustosa Filho et al. (2024)

Intensive Pasture

M. maximus, established in 2006, high productivity

Entisol

17.0

-

44.0

-

Lustosa Filho et al. (2024)

Silvopastoral System

M. maximus + tree species with 25%, 50%, or 75% shading

Entisol

27.3

-

52.0

-

Lustosa Filho et al. (2024)

Caatinga

Native Forest

Area of native vegetation with no deforestation since the 1980s.

Inceptisol

54.3

3.1

76.4

6.3

Tonucci et al. (2023)

Agroforestry System

Native vegetation + sorghum/millet + pigeon pea + M. maximus cv. Massai, established after native vegetation removal in 2016 – 2017.

Inceptisol

23.8

1.0

66.4

2.7

Tonucci et al. (2023)

Agropastoral System

Established after native vegetation removal in 2016 – 2017

Inceptisol

51.9

3.9

75.4

7.9

Tonucci et al. (2023)

Cerrado

Native Forest

Intact area,  no anthropogenic intervention

Oxisol/

Entisol

51.0

-

82.5

-

Dionizio et al. (2020)

Native Forest

"Cerradão" vegetation, no anthropogenic intervention

Oxisol

109.2

7.9

-

-

Freitas et al. (2020)

Agriculture

Annual crops established after native vegetation or pastures; rainfed

Oxisol/

Entisol

32.2

-

57.4

-

Dionizio et al. (2020)

Agriculture

Annual crops established after native vegetation or pastures; irrigated

Oxisol/

Entisol

45.5

-

78.1

-

Dionizio et al. (2020)

Intensive Pasture

U. brizantha  introduced in 2014, after conversion of degraded areas

Oxisol

65.5

4.4

-

-

Freitas et al. (2020)

Degraded Pasture

U. brizantha  established after native vegetation removal in 1994

Oxisol

58.1

4.0

-

-

Freitas et al. (2020)

ILPF System

Maize, eucalyptus, and U. brizantha introduced in 2014, after conversion of degraded areas

Oxisol

70.1

4.5

-

-

Freitas et al. (2020)

Atlantic Forest

Native Forest

Intact area,  no human intervention

Argissolo

49.3

4.0

97.3

7.8

Santos et al. (2019)

Intensive Pasture

U. brizantha cv Arapoti, established after deforestation in 2000

Argissolo

61.2

5.4

116.2

9.8

Santos et al. (2019)

Intensive Pasture

U. brizantha cv Xaraés, established after deforestation in 2000

Argissolo

66.6

4.6

119.4

8.7

Santos et al. (2019)

Notes: SCS – Soil Carbon Stock; SNS – Soil Nitrogen Stock. 1Nominal pasture: sustainably managed area, without degradation, but without significant improvements in management (IPCC, 2006; de Oliveira et al., 2022).

 


How­ever, in some regions, well-managed pastures have surpassed the values observed in native areas. Sus­tainable management practices, such as agrosil­vopastoral systems, have shown high potential to re­store stocks in degraded areas. On the other hand, conventional land uses and the absence of proper management are often associated with greater losses, particularly in the top-soil layer.

 

5. Greenhouse gas emissions

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are atmospheric compo­nents that absorb and emit radiation within the in­frared spectrum, creating a natural phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect, which is essential for maintaining life on Earth (Lian et al., 2019).

However, human activities such as fossil fuel com­bustion, deforestation, and intensive agricultural practices have significantly increased the concentra­tion of these gases, intensifying global warming and contributing to climate change (Lobus et al., 2023). The main GHGs include CO2, CH4, N2O, fluorinated gases, and water vapor (Pacheco et al., 2019). CO2 accounts for 64% of the increase in heat retained in the atmosphere (Figure 4), making it the main con­tributor to global warming (WMO, 2023). To facili­tate comparisons among different GHGs, the concept of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) is used, which expresses the emissions of other gases in terms of their global warming potential (GWP) relative to CO2 (IPCC, 2019).

 

 

 

Figure 4. Emissions of major greenhouse gases from the pre-industrial era to 2022 (Adapted from the GHG Bulletin, WMO, 2023).

 

Despite its higher atmospheric concentration, CO2 has a lower global warming potential (GWP) com­pared to CH4 and N2O, which are 27 and 273 times more potent, respectively, over a 100-year period (IPCC, 2019). However, CO2 has a much longer at­mospheric lifetime, potentially persisting for decades to centuries, whereas CH4 and N2O remain in the at­mosphere for approximately 12 and 114 years, re­spectively. This increase in GHG concentrations is directly linked to rising global temperatures, changes in climate patterns, sea level rise, and the increased frequency of extreme events (Hanna & Hall, 2020).

In this context, a detailed analysis of GHG emissions by sector is essential to identify the main contribu­tors and to develop targeted mitigation strategies. The energy sector, responsible for about one-third of global GHG emissions, stands out due to the burning of fossil fuels for electricity generation and transportation (Lamb et al., 2021). The industrial sec­tor, in turn, accounts for approximately 30% of global emissions, mainly from energy-intensive pro­cesses in the metallurgical and petrochemical indus­tries (Chien & Krumins, 2023). In agriculture and live­stock, emissions are primarily derived from enteric fermentation, manure management, fertilizer use, and rice cultivation (Chiriacò et al., 2021).

In Brazil, GHG emissions are predominantly concen­trated in the land-use change and forestry sector, which accounts for 1.12 billion tons of CO2eq (Figure 5a). This total is primarily driven by deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado biomes (SEEG). Agricul­ture and livestock also play a significant role, con­tributing 606.26 million tons of CO2eq, of which 63% originate from enteric fermentation and 30% from soil management (Figure 5b). Other relevant sectors include energy (18%), solid waste (4%), and industrial processes (3%) (SEEG, 2022).

 

5.1. GHG emission dynamics and influencing factors

5.1.1. Soil CO2 emissions

Soil CO2 emissions are an essential component of the carbon cycle, occurring mainly through the de­composition of organic matter and root respiration (Abreu et al., 2024). During photosynthesis, plants capture CO2 from the atmosphere and produce or­ganic matter, which, when decomposed, releases CO2 back into the atmosphere, completing the cycle. This process is influenced by biological, physical, and chemical factors, as well as by soil management practices (Jones et al., 2019; Soares & Rousk, 2019; Lal et al., 2021).


 

Figure 5. Distribution of GHG emissions by sector (a) and breakdown of emissions within the agricultural sector (b) in Brazil in 2022. Adapted from SEEG (2022).

 


Among the biological factors, microbial activity and root respiration play a fundamental role in CO2 re­lease. These processes can be intensified by agricul­tural practices that increase nutrient availability, such as fertilizer application, or alter soil structure, such as mechanization (Segnini et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2021). However, conservation practices like no-tillage, which avoid soil disturbance and exposure of organic matter to oxygen, and promote a higher proportion of micropores, have the potential to sta­bilize carbon stocks and reduce emissions.

 

Soil physical factors, such as texture, structure, and moisture, directly influence CO2 emissions. Clay soil, for instance, retains more moisture, which can en­hance microbial activity (Miller et al., 2020). Land-use and forest changes convert carbon sinks into emission sources, with global estimates of 1.36 ± 0.42 Pg C year⁻¹ between 2009 and 2018 (Gasser et al., 2020). In Brazil, such conversions have reduced soil carbon stocks and increased emissions, whereas agroforestry systems (Rosa & Neto, 2019) and/or re­covered or well-managed pastures have shown greater efficiency in carbon retention (de Oliveira et al., 2022; Azevedo et al., 2024).

 

Chemical factors, such as soil pH, nutrient availabi­lity, and the presence of heavy metals, directly affect CO2 emissions. Soils with neutral or slightly acidic pH exhibit higher microbial activity, whereas highly acidic or alkaline soils inhibit organic matter decom­position (Bramble et al., 2019; Shaaban et al., 2019). Although fertilizer applications can stimulate micro­bial activity, it may also enhance CO2 release due to increased organic matter decomposition.

 

Sustainable management practices have shown great potential in reducing CO2 emissions and en­hancing the soil's carbon sequestration capacity. No-tillage systems, for example, improve soil struc­ture and promote a more stable environment, the­reby reducing long-term emissions. Studies indicate that long-term no-tillage systems exhibit greater carbon retention and soil resilience, particularly due to improvements in soil moisture and porosity (Santos et al., 2019).

 

In addition, well-managed pastures through practi­ces such as rotational grazing, balanced fertilization, and proper stocking rate control can significantly in­crease soil carbon stocks. Compared to degraded pastures, these practices help stabilize soil carbon, reduce CO2 emissions, and enhance the sustainabi­lity of agricultural production (Segnini et al., 2019). Such strategies not only mitigate environmental impacts but also improve soil fertility and production efficiency.

5.1.2. CH4 emissions

Methane (CH4) production in soils occurs predomi­nantly through methanogenesis, an anaerobic pro­cess carried out by methanogenic Archaea. This process plays a crucial role in the carbon cycle, taking place both naturally and under human influ­ence. Methanogenesis can be divided into two main pathways: acetoclastic methanogenesis, in which acetate (CH3COOH) is converted into CH4 and CO2; and hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, in which CO2 is reduced to CH4 using hydrogen (H2) as an electron donor (Dean et al., 2018; Conrad, 2020; Alves et al., 2022).

In addition to CH4 production, this gas can be oxi­dized back to CO2 by methanotrophic microorgan­isms under aerobic conditions or by ammonia-oxidizing bacteria. These processes, known as methanotrophy, are critical for maintaining the CH4 balance in soils, acting as a counterbalance to its production (Zhang et al., 2019; Dizon et al., 2023). Thus, CH4 exchange in soils depends on the dynamic balance between its production (methanogenesis) and its oxidation (methanotrophy), which is regulated by factors such as aerobic or anaerobic conditions, substrate availability, and the activity of specialized microbial communities.

Flooded agricultural systems, such as rice paddies, are major sources of CH4 due to the anaerobic conditions created by prolonged waterlogging (Gu et al., 2022). Management practices such as mid-season drainage can reduce these emissions by temporarily introducing oxygen into the soil, thereby inhibiting methanogenic activity (Yan et al., 2019). Furthermore, the conversion of forests to pastures tends to increase CH4 emissions, while management strategies that reduce organic matter inputs can help mitigate them (Lage Filho et al., 2023).

Lage Filho et al. (2023), evaluating the impacts of land use, temperature, and nitrogen application on CH4 emissions in the Eastern Amazon, found that the highest emissions occurred in pasture soils, reaching values of 470 ng CH4 g⁻¹ dry soil. These high values were attributed to enhanced methano­genic microbial activity under favorable conditions, such as greater organic matter availability and soil moisture. In addition, they found that soil warming above 30 °C can reduce CH4 emissions, whereas nitrogen addition may either increase or decrease emissions depending on the dose and soil type.

Despite these findings, recent evidence indicates that pastures can also act as CH4 sinks depending on management. Alves et al. (2022) showed that pastures harbor more complex and responsive methanogenic communities, with higher early CH4 emissions under favorable conditions. Moreover, Souza et al. (2021) demonstrated that maintaining grass cover in pastures significantly reduced the abundance of methanogenic archaea and increased CH4 uptake by up to 35%. These findings highlight the critical role of pasture management in determin­ing whether they function as sources or sink of methane. Another study examined how nitrogen fertilizer sources and application rates affect CH4, CO4, and N2O fluxes in warm-season pastures. The results showed that while nitrogen fertilization significantly increased cumulative N2O and CO2 emissions, it had no significant effect on CH4 emissions, suggesting that CH4 fluxes are more closely linked to soil struc­ture and its water retention capacity (Corrêa et al., 2021).

 

5.1.3. N2O emissions

The production of N2O in the soil is related to the processes of nitrification and denitrification (Figure 6). In nitrification, microorganisms convert ammonia (NH3) into nitrite (NO2⁻) and subsequently into ni­trate (NO3⁻), releasing N2O as a byproduct (Figure 6a). In denitrification, which occurs under anaerobic conditions, nitrate is sequentially reduced to molec­ular nitrogen, with N2O as an intermediate (Figure 6b) (Prosser et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021).

The use of mineral and organic fertilizers increases nitrogen availability in the soil, promoting the for­mation of N2O through nitrification and denitrifica­tion processes (Kudeyarov, 2020). In compacted or poorly drained soils, emissions are even higher due to the intermediate oxygenation conditions, which favor incomplete nitrate reduction (Prosser et al., 2019; Conrad, 2020). Additionally, the presence of available organic carbon enhances denitrifying ac­tivity, contributing to higher N2O emission rates (Liu et al., 2022).

The increase in the amount of nitrogen fertilizers used during land use changes significantly alter N2O emissions. Lage Filho et al. (2022) found that N2O emissions were higher in agricultural soils compared to forest and pasture areas, and that soil tempera­ture increases further elevated these emissions. The contribution of denitrification to N2O production in­creases with temperature in some soil types, while autotrophic nitrification is also influenced by tem­perature (Zhang et al., 2021).

Studies conducted in the Brazilian Amazon confirm the influence of nitrogen fertilization on N2O emis­sions in tropical pastures. Nascimento et al. (2021) observed that Urochloa brizantha pastures fertilized with 40 and 80 kg N ha⁻¹, using urea or ammonium sulfate, exhibited N2O emission peaks between 4 and 7 days after application. Emission fluxes were highest in the treatments with 80 kg N ha⁻¹, while the lowest occurred in the control and the treatment in­oculated with Azospirillum brasilense. In all fertilizer treatments, the emission factors were below 0.35%, lower than the IPCC default value of 1%. These find­ings highlight the importance of selecting appropri­ate nitrogen sources and application rates to sup­port sustainable management in tropical systems.


 

 

Figure 6. Simplified diagram of the nitrification (a) and denitrification (b) processes related to nitrous oxide production (N2O). AMO - Ammonia monooxygenase; HAO - Hydroxylamine oxidoreductase; NXR - Nitrite oxidoreductase. Adapted from Prosser et al. (2019), Wang et al. (2021), and Zhang et al. (2021).

 


Management practices, such as crop rotation and soil preparation (conventional tillage or no-tillage), directly influence nitrogen dynamics in the soil and, consequently, N2O emissions (Machado et al., 2021). Climatic conditions, including soil temperature and moisture, also strongly affect N2O fluxes. In warm and humid environments, microbial activity tends to increase, leading to higher emissions (Corrêa et al., 2021). Although such conditions may occur under no-tillage systems, the absence of soil disturbance, maintenance of aggregate structure, and reduced soil aeration help offset the effects of increased moisture, thereby reducing N2O emissions. Under­standing the interaction among these factors is es­sential for developing sustainable agricultural prac­tices capable of mitigating N2O emissions and mini­mizing the climate impacts of agricultural activities.

 

6. Sustainable solutions and future challenges

In response to the impacts of climate change, institutions and initiatives have been established to bridge the gap between science and public policy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), founded in 1988, aims to provide scientific assessments of climate risks and guide mitigation and adaptation strategies (Kohler & Rockman, 2020). At COP21, held in Paris in 2015, 195 countries committed to limiting global warming to below 2 °C, with efforts to restrict it to 1.5 °C (Allan et al., 2023). These international agreements directly influence Brazilian policies related to sustainable land use and climate change mitigation.

In Brazil, the Amazon Fund, established in 2008, supports projects focused on deforestation preven­tion, monitoring, and control, promoting conserva­tion and sustainable use of forests in the Legal Am­azon (Correa et al., 2020). Another key initiative is the Low Carbon Agriculture Plan (ABC Plan), launched in 2010, which encourages low-carbon agricultural practices such as pasture recovery, inte­grated crop-livestock-forestry systems (ICLFS), no-tillage, biological nitrogen fixation, planted forests, and animal waste management (Quintão et al., 2021; Piao et al., 2021).

Land-use changes directly affect regional climate by altering rainfall distribution and increasing surface temperatures. Deforestation reduces evapotranspi­ration, can raise temperatures by up to 3 °C, and dis­rupt surface atmospheric circulation patterns (Hong et al., 2022; Rodrigues et al., 2022). In the Amazon, activities such as logging and the subsequent con­version of natural areas into agricultural lands have jeopardized carbon and nitrogen stocks, biodiver­sity, and ecological functioning (Azevedo et al., 2024). Addressing these challenges requires inte­grated strategies that reconcile conservation, eco­nomic development, and social inclusion (Domin-gues et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2023).

Practices such as sustainable pasture intensification, integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems (ICLFS), and agroforestry systems stand out as effective so­lutions to enhance carbon sequestration and reduce emissions. Intensification includes strategies such as fertilization, soil acidity correction, grazing manage­ment, and proper vegetation control. The cultivation of perennial species, such as oil palm, also contrib­utes to the recovery of degraded areas, stabilization of biogeochemical cycles, and increased soil carbon retention (Wang et al., 2021; Rakesh et al., 2020).

These approaches combine environmental benefits with economic gains for local communities, repre­senting key pillars in the transition to sustainable productive practices (Condé et al., 2020). Table 5 presents a summary of sustainable solutions and the main challenges for their adoption, as discussed throughout this section.

Perennial crops play a strategic role in this context. Açaí, for example, contributes to biodiversity conser­vation in riparian areas and offers sustainable eco­nomic alternatives. Oil palm, in turn, has been eval­uated for its potential in integrated cultivation sys­tems with other crops, thereby increasing carbon se­questration capacity. It can be grown on previously degraded lands, promoting land restoration, im­proving soil fertility, and enhancing organic matter storage (Rakesh et al., 2020; Gelaye & Getahun, 2024). These examples demonstrate how sustaina­ble management practices can align environmental and economic objectives (Malhi et al., 2020; Weiskopf et al., 2020).

Despite recent progress, the large-scale adoption of these practices still faces significant challenges. Smallholders face economic constraints, such as lim­ited access to credit and the absence of targeted in­centives. Unregulated agricultural expansion, driven by crops like soybean and cattle ranching, continues to exert pressure on natural resources. Although pastures, oil palm, and soybean have potential for sustainable management, improper application may exacerbate environmental impacts (Amaral et al., 2019; Brito et al., 2021). Forest degradation also re­mains a major concern, with about 38% of the re­maining Amazon areas affected by fires, logging, and extreme droughts, resulting in carbon emissions comparable to those from direct deforestation (Lapola et al., 2023).


 

 

Table 5

Sustainable solutions and main challenges for their implementation in the Amazon

 

Type of solution

Strategy or action

Main implementation challenges

Reference

Sustainable land use

ICLF, agroforestry systems, restoration of degraded pastures

Lack of technical assistance, limited credit access, weak public policies

Condé et al. (2020); Domingues et al. (2020); Wang et al. (2021)

Perennial crops

Açaí and oil palm in degraded areas for carbon sequestration and ecological restoration

Risk of monocultures, inappropriate land use, lack of integrated planning

Rakesh et al. (2020); Malhi et al. (2020); Gelaye & Getahun (2024)

Management technologies

No-tillage, BNF, animal waste management

Low adoption among smallholders; lack of government incentives

Piao et al. (2021); Quintão et al. (2021)

Reforestation and restoration

Reforestation with native species, restoration of ecological functions

Long return periods, high costs, absence of long-term policies

Flores et al. (2020); Deng et al. (2020)

Governance and social inclusion

Involvement of local communities and traditional peoples in sustainable management

Lack of legal recognition, exclusion of traditional knowledge from public policy

Domingues et al. (2020); Wang et al. (2023)

Environmental monitoring

Remote sensing, satellite imagery, artificial intelligence

Technological limitations, restricted data access, need for local technical capacity

Gatti et al. (2021)

Controlled agricultural expansion

Incentives for sustainable management of pastures, oil palm, and soy

Productivity pressure, improper land conversion, worsening environmental impacts

Amaral et al. (2019); Brito et al. (2021)

Forest degradation prevention

Measures against fires, illegal logging, and extreme droughts

Large extent of degraded areas; challenges in enforcement and mitigation

Lapola et al. (2023)

Notes: ICLF - integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems; BNF - biological nitrogen fixation.

 


Environmental governance is essential to address these challenges. Local communities and traditional peoples play a central role in preserving Amazonian ecosystems, offering practical knowledge on sustainable land management that enhances conserva­tion and territorial governance. Integrating these ac­tors into public policies is essential to align environ­mental preservation with social inclusion (Domingues et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2023). Further­more, advanced technologies such as remote sens­ing, satellite monitoring systems, artificial intelli­gence, and high-resolution imagery are critical for detecting deforestation hotspots and planning for­est regeneration (Gatti et al., 2021).

Finally, the restoration of degraded areas through reforestation with native species and the sustainable management of pastures is essential to restore eco­logical functions and mitigate climate change im­pacts. Investments in farmer training, economic in­centives, and the integration of innovative technol­ogies are key to the success of these strategies (Flores et al., 2020; Deng et al., 2020).

Although promising advances have been achieved, preserving the Amazon as a global environmental asset requires continuous effort and collaboration among governments, research institutions, local communities, and the private sector. With effective governance, integrated policies, and the strength­ening of sustainable practices, it is possible to ensure a future where environmental conservation, eco­nomic productivity, and social inclusion advance to­gether (Domingues et al., 2020; Malhi et al., 2020).

 

7. Conclusions

 

The Brazilian Amazon faces critical challenges due to climate change and environmental degradation, highlighting the importance of sustainable practices such as pasture management, agroforestry systems, and ICLF systems. This review showed that native forests maintain the highest soil C and N stocks. However, well-managed pastures with proper ferti­lization and forage intercropping also exhibit high accumulation potential, especially in deeper soil layers. In contrast, intensively managed agricultural soils tend to show greater losses of organic matter and increased GHG emissions, with particularly high N2O fluxes observed in intensively grazed pastures under high fertilizer doses and elevated tempera­tures. The interaction between land use, fertilization, and microenvironmental conditions has been iden­tified as a key factor in modulating CO2, CH4, and N2O fluxes, reinforcing the need for adaptive strate­gies to mitigate environmental impacts. In this context, it is essential that scientific advances on soil C and N stocks and GHG fluxes inform public policies aimed at sustainable intensification and at valuing the Amazon as a strategic environmental asset.

 

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the Coordination for the improvement of higher education personnel (CAPES), which, through the PDPG-Amazônia Legal program, provided a scholarship to the first author (process no. 88887.510270/2020-00).

 

ORCID

L. M. Moraes  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3691-3111

J. C. de Azevedo  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3853-8135 

N. M. Lage Filho  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2914-4182 

J. V. de Oliveira  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3421-9057 

N. L. Abreu  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7683-0823

P. A. Junior  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4425-3160 

T. C. da Silva  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7823-3950 

C. Ruggieri  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9646-8489

C. Faturi  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6676-1844

C. do Rêgo  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5452-0832 

 

References

 

Abagandura, G. O., Mamo, M., Schacht, W. H., Shropshire, A., & Volesky, J. D. (2024). Soil carbon and nitrogen after eight years of rotational grazing in the Nebraska Sandhills meadows. Geoderma, 442, 116776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2024.116776

Abreu, N. L., Ribeiro, E. S. D. C., Sousa, C. E. S. D., Moraes, L. M., Oliveira, J. V. C. D., Faria, L. D. A., ... & Silva, T. C. D. (2024). Land use change and greenhouse gas emissions: An explanation about the main emission drivers. Ciência Animal Brasileira, 25, 77646E.  https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-6891v25e-77646E

Ahirwal, J., Kumari, S., Singh, A. K., Kumar, A., & Maiti, S. K. (2021). Changes in soil properties and carbon fluxes following afforestation and agriculture in tropical forest. Ecological Indicators, 123, 107354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107354

Albert, J. S., Carnaval, A. C., Flantua, S. G., Lohmann, L. G., Ribas, C. C., Riff, D., ... & Nobre, C. A. (2023). Human impacts outpace natural processes in the Amazon. Science, 379(6630), eabo5003. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo5003

Allan, J. I., Roger, C. B., Hale, T. N., Bernstein, S., Tiberghien, Y., & Balme, R. (2023). Making the Paris Agreement: Historical processes and the drivers of institutional design. Political Studies, 71(4), 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217211049294

Alvares, C. A., Stape, J. L., Sentelhas, P. C., de Moraes Gonçalves, J. L., & Sparovek, G. (2013). Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 22(6), 711–728. https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0507

Alves, K. J., Pylro, V. S., Nakayama, C. R., et al. (2022). Methanogenic communities and methane emissions from enrichments of Brazilian Amazonia soils under land-use change. Microbiological Research, 265, 127178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2022.127178

Amaral, S. S., Costa, M. A. M., Neto, T. G. S., Costa, M. P., Dias, F. F., Anselmo, E., ... & de Carvalho Jr, J. A. (2019). CO2, CO, hydrocarbon gases and PM2.5 emissions on dry season by deforestation fires in the Brazilian Amazonia. Environmental Pollution, 249, 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.023

Andrade, V. M. S., Cordeiro, I. M. C. C., Schwartz, G., Rangel-Vasconcelos, L. G. T., & Oliveira, F. de A. (2017). Considerações sobre clima e aspectos edafoclímáticos da Mesorregião Nordeste Paraense. In I. M. C. C. Cordeiro, L. G. T. Rangel-Vasconcelos, G. Schwartz, & F. de A. Oliveira (Eds.), Nordeste Paraense: Panorama geral e uso sustentável das florestas secundárias (pp. 61–100). EDUFRA. https://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1073621

Artaxo, P., Hansson, H., Machado, L., & Rizzo, L. (2022). Tropical forests are crucial in regulating the climate on Earth. PLOS Climate. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000054

Arruda, M. E., Chaebo, G., & Thiago, F. (2023). Neoliberalismo e desmatamento na Amazônia no governo Jair Bolsonaro: Neoliberalism and deforestation in the Amazon in the Jair Bolsonaro government. Professare, 12(3), e3064–e3064. https://doi.org/10.33362/professare.v12i3.3064

Assis, T. O., Aguiar, A. P. D., Randow, C. v., & Nobre, C. A. (2022). Projections of future forest degradation and CO2 emissions for the Brazilian Amazon. Science Advances, 8(11), eabj3309. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abj3309

Azevedo, J. C. D., Cardoso, A. D. S., Lage Filho, N. M., Faturi, C., Silva, T. C. D., Domingues, F. N., ... & do Rêgo, A. C. (2024). Effects of agricultural expansion on soil carbon and nitrogen stocks in the Amazon deforestation arc. Soil Systems, 8(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems8010025

Baccini, A., Walker, W., Carvalho, L., et al. (2017). Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science, 358(6360), 230–234. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5962

Badari, C. G., Bernardini, L. E., de Almeida, D. R., Brancalion, P. H., César, R. G., Gutierrez, V., ... & Viani, R. A. (2020). Ecological outcomes of agroforests and restoration 15 years after planting. Restoration Ecology, 28(5), 1135–1144. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13171

Bramble, D., Gouveia, G., & Ramnarine, R. (2019). Organic residues and ammonium effects on CO2 emissions and soil quality indicators in limed acid tropical soils. Soil Systems, 3(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems3010016

Bogaerts, M., Cirhigiri, L., Robinson, I., Rodkin, M., Hajjar, R., C. C. Junior, Newton, P. (2017). Climate change mitigation through intensified pasture management: Estimating greenhouse gas emissions on cattle farms in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 1539–1550. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.06.130

Brito, T., Fragoso, R., Marques, P., Fernandes-Silva, A., & Aranha, J. (2021, May). LCA of Soybean Supply Chain Produced in the State of Pará, Located in the Brazilian Amazon Biome. Biology and Life Sciences Forum, 3(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/IECAG2021-10072

Bueno, R. S., Marchetti, L., Cocozza, C., Marchetti, M., & Salbitano, F. (2021). Could cattle ranching and soybean cultivation be sustainable? A systematic review and a meta-analysis for the Amazon. IFOREST, 14, 285-298. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor3779-014

Buscardo, E., Souza, R. C., Meir, P., et al. (2021). Effects of natural and experimental drought on soil fungi and biogeochemistry in an Amazon rain forest. Communications Earth & Environment, 2(1), 55. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00124-8

Chen, Q., Long, C., Chen, J., & Cheng, X. (2021). Differential response of soil CO₂, CH₄, and N2O emissions to edaphic properties and microbial attributes following afforestation in central China. Global Change Biology, 27(21), 5657-5669. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15826

Chien, S. C., & Krumins, J. A. (2023). Anthropogenic effects on global soil nitrogen pools. Science of the Total Environment, 902, 166238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166238

Chiriacò, M. V., & Valentini, R. (2021). A land-based approach for climate change mitigation in the livestock sector. In EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts (pp. EGU21-7959). https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu21-7959

Condé, T. M., Condé, J. D., & Sousa, C. W. L. (2020). Açaí fruit production and carbon stock in managed plantations in Southeast of Roraima. Revista Agro@mbiente On-line, 14, e5849. https://doi.org/10.18227/1982-8470ragro.v14i0.5849

Conrad, R. (2020). Importance of hydrogenotrophic, aceticlastic and methylotrophic methanogenesis for methane production in terrestrial, aquatic and other anoxic environments: A mini review. Pedosphere, 30(5), 563-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(18)60052-9

Corrêa, D. C. da C., Cardoso, A. da S., Ferreira, M. R., Siniscalchi, D., Toniello, A. D., Lima, G. C. de, Reis, R. A., & Ruggieri, A. C. (2021). Are CH4, CO2, and N2O emissions from soil affected by the sources and doses of N in warm-season pasture? Atmosphere, 12(6), 697. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12060697

Correa, J., Cisneros, E., Börner, J., et al. (2020). Evaluating REDD+ at subnational level: Amazon fund impacts in Alta Floresta, Brazil. Forest Policy and Economics, 116, 102178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102178

Cotrufo, M. F., & Lavallee, J. M. (2022). Soil organic matter formation, persistence, and functioning: A synthesis of current understanding to inform its conservation and regeneration. Advances in Agronomy, 172, 1–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2021.11.002

Cruz, B. G. A., & Rocha, C. G. S. (2019). Changes in practices of organic certified cocoa farmers in Southwest Paraense, Eastern Amazonia. Research, Society and Development, 8(6), e49861087. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v8i6.1087

Cui, D., Liang, S., Wang, D., & Liu, Z. (2021). A 1 km global dataset of historical (1979–2013) and future (2020–2100) Köppen–Geiger climate classification and bioclimatic variables. Earth System Science Data, 13(11), 5087–5114. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-5087-2021

Cunha, M. A., & Costa, S. M. F. (2020). Mapeamento da palmeira de açaí (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) na floresta Amazônica utilizando imagem de satélite de alta resolução espacial. Revista Espinhaço, 9(2), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4432830

Dai, Z., Yu, M., Chen, H., et al. (2020). Elevated temperature shifts soil N cycling from microbial immobilization to enhanced mineralization, nitrification and denitrification across global terrestrial ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 26(9), 5267–5276. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15211

Danielson, R. E., & Rodrigues, J. L. M. (2022). Impacts of land-use change on soil microbial communities and their function in the Amazon Rainforest. Advances in Agronomy, 175, 179–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2022.04.001

Dean, J. F., Middelburg, J. J., Röckmann, T., et al. (2018). Methane feedbacks to the global climate system in a warmer world. Reviews of Geophysics, 56(1), 207–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017RG000559

Deng, X., Ma, W., Ren, Z., et al. (2020). Spatial and temporal trends of soil total nitrogen and C/N ratio for croplands of East China. Geoderma, 361, 114035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.114035

De Oliveira, D. C., Maia, S. F., Freitas, R. C. A., et al. (2022). Changes in soil carbon and soil carbon sequestration potential under different types of pasture management in Brazil. Regional Environmental Change, 22(87). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-022-01945-9

Dionizio, E. A., Pimenta, F. M., Lima, L. B., & Costa, M. H. (2020). Carbon stocks and dynamics of different land uses on the Cerrado agricultural frontier. PLOS ONE, 15(11), e0241637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241637

Dizon, L. S. H., Bertrand, R. S., Holmes, W. E., et al. (2023). Analysis of methanotroph populations from various sources for production of high-value products. Engineering Proceedings, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/ASEC2022-13953

Domingues, S. C. O., Silva, I. C. O., Santos, J. S., Yamashita, O. M., & Carvalho, M. A. C. (2020). Agricultural activity: Legal Amazon: Environmental degradation. Scientific Electronic Archives, 13(8), 104. https://doi.org/10.36560/13820201035

Flores, B. M., Oliveira, R. S., Rowland, L., Quesada, C. A., & Lambers, H. (2020). Editorial special issue: plant-soil interactions in the Amazon rainforest. Plant and Soil, 450(1–2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-020-04544-x

Freitas, I. C. de, Ribeiro, J. M., Araújo, N. C. A., Santos, M. V., Sampaio, R. A., Fernandes, L. A., Azevedo, A. M., Feigl, B. J., Cerri, C. E. P., & Frazão, L. A. (2020). Agrosilvopastoral systems and well-managed pastures increase soil carbon stocks in the Brazilian Cerrado. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 73(6), 776–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2020.08.001

Gasser, T., Crepin, L., Quilcaille, Y., et al. (2020). Historical emissions from land use and land cover change and their uncertainty. Biogeosciences, 17(15), 4075–4101. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4075-2020

Gatti, L. V., Basso, L. S., Miller, J. B., et al. (2021). Amazonia as a carbon source linked to deforestation and climate change. Nature, 595(7867), 388–393. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03629-6

Gelaye, Y., & Getahun, S. (2024). A review of the carbon sequestration potential of fruit trees and their implications for climate change mitigation: The case of Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2294544

Gomes, C. V. A. (2018). Ciclos econômicos do extrativismo na Amazônia na visão dos viajantes naturalistas. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 13, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981.81222018000100007

Gomes, L. C., Faria, R. M., de Souza, E., et al. (2019). Modelling and mapping soil organic carbon stocks in Brazil. Geoderma, 340, 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.01.011

Gomes, M. F., Vasconcelos, S. S., Viana‐Junior, A. B., et al. (2021). Oil palm agroforestry shows higher soil permanganate oxidizable carbon than monoculture plantations in Eastern Amazonia. Land Degradation & Development, 32(15), 4313–4326. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4038

Gomes, J. M. S., de Figueiredo, L. F. G., Rodrigues, C. C., de Castro, G. L. S., de Jesus Zissou, A., Andrade, E. D. S. S., ... & Chase, O. A. (2024). Heading for sustainability in the Amazon: A systemic approach and proposals to combat deforestation. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 18(1), e07518-e07518. https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n1-185

Gu, X., Weng, S., Li, Y., & Zhou, X. (2022). Effects of water and fertilizer management practices on methane emissions from paddy soils: Synthesis and perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(12), 7456. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127324

Hanna, E., & Hall, R. J. (2020). Earth, air, fire and ice: Exploring links between human-induced global warming, polar ice melt and local scale extreme weather. In S. Myers, S. Hemstock, & E. Hanna (Eds.), Science, faith and the climate crisis (pp. 47–64). https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83982-984-020201006

Hoffmann, E. L., Dallacort, R., Carvalho, M. A. C., Yamashita, O. M., & Barbieri, J. D. (2018). Variabilidade das chuvas no Sudeste da Amazônia Paraense, Brasil (Rainfall variability in southeastern Amazonia, Paraense, Brazil). Revista Brasileira de Geografia Física, 11(4), 1251–1263. https://doi.org/10.26848/rbgf.v11.4.p1251-1263

Hou, D. (2021). Sustainable soil management and climate change mitigation. Soil Use & Management, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12718

Hong, T., Wu, J., Kang, X., Yuan, M., & Duan, L. (2022). Impacts of different land use scenarios on future global and regional climate extremes. Atmosphere, 13(6), 995. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13060995

Hu, X., Næss, J. S., Iordan, C. M., et al. (2021). Recent global land cover dynamics and implications for soil erosion and carbon losses from deforestation. Anthropocene, 34, 100291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2021.100291

Ibiapina, A., Gualberto, L. da S., Dias, B. B., et al. (2022). Essential and fixed oils from Amazonian fruits: properties and applications. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 62(32), 8842–8854. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1935702

Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais. (INPE) (2024). Monitoramento do desmatamento da Amazônia Legal por satélite – PRODES: Nota técnica final 2024. https://www.gov.br/mcti/pt-br/acompanhe-o- mcti/noticias/2024/11/20241106PRODES_Final1.pdf

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2019). Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2019-refinement-to-the-2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. Genebra: IPCC. Recuperado de https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/

Jones, A. R., Gupta, V. V. S. R., Buckley, S., et al. (2019). Drying and rewetting effects on organic matter mineralisation of contrasting soils after 36 years of storage. Geoderma, 342, 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.01.001

Kohler, T. A., & Rockman, M. (2020). The IPCC: A Primer for Archaeologists. American Antiquity, 85(4), 627–651. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2020.68

Kooch, Y., Piri, A. S., & Tilaki, G. A. D. (2021). Tree cover mediates indices related to the content of organic matter and the size of microbial population in semi-arid ecosystems. Journal of Environmental Management, 292, 112144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112144

Kudeyarov, V. N. (2020). Nitrous Oxide Emission from Fertilized Soils: An Analytical Review. Eurasian Soil Science, 53(10), 1396–1407. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229320100105

Lage Filho, N. M., Cardoso, A. da S., Azevedo, J. C. de, et al. (2022). Land use, temperature, and nitrogen affect nitrous oxide emissions in Amazonian soils. Agronomy, 12(7), 1608. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071608

Lage Filho, N. M., Cardoso, A. da S., Azevedo, J. C. de, et al. (2023). How does land use change affect the methane emission of soil in the Eastern Amazon? Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1244152

Lal, R., Monger, C., Nave, L., & Smith, P. (2021). The role of soil in regulation of climate. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376(1834), 20210084. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0084

Lamb, W. F., Wiedmann, T., Pongratz, J., et al. (2021). A review of trends and drivers of greenhouse gas emissions by sector from 1990 to 2018. Environmental Research Letters, 16(7), 073005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abee4e

Lapola, D. M., Pinho, P., Barlow, J., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Berenguer, E., Carmenta, R., Liddy, H. M., Seixas, H., Silva, C. V. J., et al. (2023). The drivers and impacts of Amazon forest degradation. Science, 379(6630), eabp8622. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp8622

Leul, Y., Assen, M., Damene, S., & Legass, A. (2023). Effects of land-use dynamics on soil organic carbon and total nitrogen stock, Western Ethiopia. Applied and Environmental Soil Science, 2023, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5080313

Li, Y., Ma, J., Gao, C., et al. (2021). Anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) is the main microbial N loss pathway in alpine wetland soils of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Science of The Total Environment, 787, 147714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147714

Lian, X., Xu, L., Chen, M., et al. (2019). Carbon dioxide captured by metal-organic frameworks and its subsequent resource utilization strategy: A review and prospect. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 19(6), 3456–3470. https://doi.org/10.1166/jnn.2019.16647

Liu, L., Estiarte, M., & Peñuelas, J. (2019). Soil moisture as the key factor of atmospheric CH₄ uptake in forest soils under environmental change. Geoderma, 353, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.113920

Liu, L., Zheng, N., Yu, Y., Zheng, Z., & Yao, H. (2024). Soil carbon and nitrogen cycles driven by iron redox: A review. Science of The Total Environment, 918, 170660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170660

Lobus, N. V., Knyazeva, M. A., Popova, A. F., & Kulikovskiy, M. S. (2023). Carbon footprint reduction and climate change mitigation: A review of the approaches, technologies, and implementation challenges. C, 9(4), 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/c9040120

Lustosa Filho, J. F., de Oliveira, H. M. R., de Souza Barros, V. M., dos Santos, A. C., & de Oliveira, T. S. (2024). From forest to pastures and silvopastoral systems: Soil carbon and nitrogen stocks changes in northeast Amazônia. Science of The Total Environment, 908, 168251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168251

Marengo, J. A., Souza Jr, C. M., Thonicke, K., Burton, C., Halladay, K., Betts, R. A., ... & Soares, W. R. (2018). Changes in climate and land use over the Amazon region: current and future variability and trends. Frontiers in Earth Science, 6, 228. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00228

Machado, P. V. F., Farrell, R. E., Deen, W., et al. (2021). Contribution of crop residue, soil, and fertilizer nitrogen to nitrous oxide emissions varies with long-term crop rotation and tillage. Science of The Total Environment, 767, 145107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145107

Malhi, Y., Franklin, J., Seddon, N., et al. (2020). Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1794), 20190104. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0104

Midwood, A. J., Hannam, K. D., Gebretsadikan, T., Emde, D., & Jones, M. D. (2021). Storage of soil carbon as particulate and mineral associated organic matter in irrigated woody perennial crops. Geoderma, 403, 115185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115185

Miller, G. A., Rees, R. M., Griffiths, B. S., & Cloy, J. M. (2020). Isolating the effect of soil properties on agricultural soil greenhouse gas emissions under controlled conditions. Soil Use and Management, 36(2), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12552

Monteiro, A., Barreto-Mendes, L., Fanchone, A., Morgavi, D. P., Pedreira, B. C., Magalhães, C. A., ... & Eugène, M. (2024). Crop-livestock-forestry systems as a strategy for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing the sustainability of forage-based livestock systems in the Amazon biome. Science of The Total Environment, 906, 167396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167396

Nagano, H., Atarashi-Andoh, M., Tanaka, S., et al. (2023). Stable C and N isotope abundances in water-extractable organic matter from air-dried soils as potential indices of microbially utilized organic matter. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1228053

Nascimento, A. F., de Oliveira, C. M., Pedreira, B. C., Pereira, D. H., & Rodrigues, R. R. D. A. (2021). Nitrous oxide emissions and forage accumulation in the Brazilian Amazon forage‐livestock systems submitted to N input strategies. Grassland Science, 67(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/grs.12287

Okebalama, C. B., Igwe, C. A., & Onunwa, A. O. (2021). Enumeration of carbon and nitrogen contents of water-stable aggregates in layers of topsoils from cultivated and adjacent bush-fallow loamy soils. AgroScience Journal, 21(1), 138–148. https://doi.org/10.4314/as.v21i1.16

Oliveira, D. M. da S., Tavares, R. L. M., Loss, A., et al. (2023). Climate-smart agriculture and soil C sequestration in Brazilian Cerrado: a systematic review. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, 47. https://doi.org/10.36783/18069657rbcs20220055

Pacheco, K. A., Reis, A. C., Bresciani, A. E., Nascimento, C. A. O., & Alves, R. M. B. (2019). Assessment of the Brazilian market for products by carbon dioxide conversion. Frontiers in Energy Research, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2019.00075

Paracampo, Á. E. N. P., Figueiredo Abreu, L., Filgueira de Lemos, O., & Castanheira Lima Both, J. P. (2022). Quality of black pepper produced in northeastern Pará. Revista de Agricultura Neotropical, 9(3), e7020. https://doi.org/10.32404/rean.v9i3.7020

Patel, K. F., Fansler, S. J., Campbell, T. P., et al. (2021). Soil texture and environmental conditions influence the biogeochemical responses of soils to drought and flooding. Communications Earth & Environment, 2(1), 127. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00198-4

Pereira, A. dos R. (2022). The struggle for land in the Eastern Amazon. Latin American Perspectives, 49(5), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X221106985

Piao, R. de C. S., Silva, V. L. dos S., Navarro del Aguila, I., & Burgos Jiménez, J. de. (2021). Green growth and agriculture in Brazil. Sustainability, 13(3), 1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031162

Prosser, J. I., Hink, L., Gubry‐Rangin, C., & Nicol, G. W. (2019). Nitrous oxide production by ammonia oxidizers: physiological diversity, niche differentiation and potential mitigation strategies. Global Change Biology, 26(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14877

Quesada, C. A., Paz, C., Mendoza, E. O., Phillips, O. L., Saiz, G., & Lloyd, J. (2020). Variations in soil chemical and physical properties explain basin-wide Amazon forest soil carbon concentrations. SOIL, 6(1), 53–88. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-6-53-2020

Quintão, J. M. B., Cantinho, R. Z., Albuquerque, E. R. G. M., Maracahipes, L., & Bustamante, M. M. C. (2021). Mudanças do uso e cobertura da terra no Brasil, emissões de GEE e políticas em curso. Ciência e Cultura, 73(1). https://doi.org/10.21800/2317-66602021000100004

Rakesh, S. S., Davamani, V., Banu, K. S. P., et al. (2020). Assessing the potential of Elaeis guineensis plantations for carbon sequestration and fresh fruit bunch yield in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.9734/CJAST/2020/v39i630562

Ramineh, A., Jourgholami, M., Etemad, V., Jafari, M., & Picchio, R. (2023). Effect of different vegetation restoration on recovery of compaction-induced soil degradation in Hyrcanian mixed forests: Influence on soil C and N pools and enzyme activities. Forests, 14(3), 603. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14030603

Rego, C. A. R. M., de Oliveira, P. S. R., Muniz, L. C., et al. (2023). Pasture recovery and their impacts on the levels, stocks, and origin of carbon and nitrogen in plinthosol areas in the eastern Amazon. Environmental Earth Sciences, 82, 419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-023-11119-3

Rodrigues, A. A., Macedo, M. N., Silvério, D. V., Maracahipes, L., Coe, M. T., Brando, P. M., Shimbo, J. Z., Rajão, R., Soares-Filho, B., & Bustamante, M. M. C. (2022). Cerrado deforestation threatens regional climate and water availability for agriculture and ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 28(1), 16386. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16386

Rodrigues, J. I. M., Rocha Martins, W. B., Lopes da Silva, L., Cipriano Castro, J., & de Assis Oliveira, F. (2024). Agricultura itinerante na Amazônia: importância, impactos e perspectivas futuras. Nativa, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.31413/nat.v12i3.17428

Rosa, V. A., & Neto, J. P. S. (2019). Atributos físicos e estoque de carbono em sistemas agroflorestais nos Cerrados do Oeste da Bahia. Revista Brasileira de Geografia Física, 12, 2660-2671. https://doi.org/10.26848/RBGF.V12.7.P2660-2671

Santos, C. A., Rezende, C. de P., Machado Pinheiro, É. F., Pereira, J. M., Alves, B. J. R., Urquiaga, S., & Boddey, R. M. (2019). Changes in soil carbon stocks after land-use change from native vegetation to pastures in the Atlantic forest region of Brazil. Geoderma, 337, 394–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.09.045

Santos, P. Z. F., Crouzeilles, R., & Sansevero, J. B. B. (2019). Can agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem service provision in agricultural landscapes? A meta-analysis for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 433, 140–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.10.064

Sharififar, A., Minasny, B., Arrouays, D., et al. (2023). Soil inorganic carbon, the other and equally important soil carbon pool: Distribution, controlling factors, and the impact of climate change. Advances in Agronomy, 178, 165–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2022.11.005

Schroth, G., Garcia, E., Griscom, B. W., Teixeira, W. G., & Barros, L. P. (2016). Commodity production as restoration driver in the Brazilian Amazon? Pasture re-agro-forestation with cocoa (Theobroma cacao) in southern Pará. Sustainability Science, 11(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0330-8

Silva, D. S., Monteiro, A., Pedreira, B. C., Mombach, M. A., Pereira, D. H., Rodrigues, R. A., & Matos, E. S. (2024). Enhancing forage–livestock system productivity and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions via sustainable pasture management of two Brachiaria cultivars. Crop and Pasture Science, 75(9). https://doi.org/10.1071/CP24054

Sistema de Estimativa de Emissões de Gases de Efeito Estufa (SEEG). Sistema de Estimativa de Emissões de Gases de Efeito Estufa. Disponível em: <https://plataforma.seeg.eco.br/>. Acessado em: 08 de janeiro de 2025.

Segnini, A., Xavier, A. A. P., Otaviani-Junior, P. L., & Oliveira, T. S. (2019). Soil carbon stock and humification in pastures under different levels of intensification in Brazil. Scientia Agricola, 76(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-992X-2017-0131

Shaaban, M., Peng, Q., Bashir, S., Hu, R., Lin, S., & Wu, Y. (2019). Restoring effect of soil acidity and Cu on N₂O emissions from an acidic soil. Journal of Environmental Management, 250, 109535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109535

Soares, M., & Rousk, J. (2019). Microbial growth and carbon use efficiency in soil: Links to fungal-bacterial dominance, SOC-quality and stoichiometry. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 131, 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.01.010

Souza, L. F., Alvarez, D. O., Domeignoz-Horta, L. A., Gomes, F. V., de Souza Almeida, C., Merloti, L. F., ... & Tsai, S. M. (2021). Maintaining grass coverage increases methane uptake in Amazonian pasture soils. bioRxiv, 2021-04. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.26.441496  

Souza, W. S. dos, da Costa Soares, S., Homem, B. G. C., de Lima, Í. B. G., Borges, L. P. C., Casagrande, D. R., ... & Boddey, R. M. (2024). Soil carbon sequestration under N fertilized or mixed legume-grass pastures depends on soil type and prior land-use. Geoderma Regional, 39, e00876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2024.e00876

Tahat, M. M., Alananbeh, K. M., Othman, Y. A., & Leskovar, D. I. (2020). Soil health and sustainable agriculture. Sustainability, 12(12), 4859. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124859

Tonucci, R. G., Vogado, R. F., Silva, R. D., & Silva, M. L. N. (2023). Agroforestry system improves soil carbon and nitrogen stocks in depth after land-use changes in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, 47, e0220120. https://doi.org/10.36783/18069657rbcs20220124

Vignoli, C. P., Leeuwen, J., Miller, R. P., & Cardoso, E. J. B. N. (2022). Soil management in indigenous agroforestry systems of guarana (Paullinia cupana Kunth) of the Sateré-Mawé ethnic group, in the Lower Amazon River region. Sustainability, 14(22), 15464. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215464

Wang, J., Luo, Y., Quan, Q., & Li, Y. (2021). Effects of warming and clipping on CH₄ and N₂O fluxes in an alpine meadow. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 297, 108278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.108278

Wang, G., Liu, Y., Yan, Z., Chen, D., Fan, J., & Ghezzehei, T. A. (2023). Soil physics matters for the land–water–food–climate nexus and sustainability. European Journal of Soil Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13444

Watrin, O. D. S., Silva, T. M. D., Porro, R., Oliveira Jr, M. M. D., & Belluzzo, A. P. (2022). Dinâmica do uso e cobertura da terra em Projeto de Desenvolvimento Sustentável na região da rodovia Transamazônica, Pará. Sociedade & Natureza, 32, 88-100. https://doi.org/10.14393/SN-v32-2020-45146

Weiskopf, S. R., Rubenstein, M. A., Crozier, L. G., Gaichas, S., Griffis, R., Halofsky, J. E., ... & Whyte, K. P. (2020). Climate change effects on biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and natural resource management in the United States. Science of the Total Environment, 733, 137782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137782

WMO. (2023). WMO Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update: Target Years: 2023 and 2023–2027. WMO Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update.

Ye, C., Chen, C., Butler, O. M., Rashti, M. R., Esfandbod, M., Du, M., & Zhang, Q. (2019). Spatial and temporal dynamics of nutrients in riparian soils after nine years of operation of the Three Gorges Reservoir, China. Science of the Total Environment, 664, 841–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.036

Zeferino, L. B., Lustosa Filho, J. F., dos Santos, A. C., Cerri, C. E. P., & Oliveira, T. S. de. (2022). Soil carbon and nitrogen stocks following forest conversion to long-term pasture in Amazon rainforest-Cerrado transition environment. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4237262

Zhang, M., Li, D., Wang, X., Abulaiz, M., Yu, P., Li, J., ... & Jia, H. (2021). Conversion of alpine pastureland to artificial grassland altered CO₂ and N₂O emissions by decreasing C and N in different soil aggregates. PeerJ, 9, e11807. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11807

Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Dai, S., et al. (2019). The effect of C:N ratio on heterotrophic nitrification in acidic soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 137, 107562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.107562