Skip to main content
Download PDF

Review: biological engineering for nature-based climate solutions

Journal of Biological Engineering volume 16, Article number: 7 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Nature-based Climate Solutions are landscape stewardship techniques to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase soil or biomass carbon sequestration. These mitigation approaches to climate change present an opportunity to supplement energy sector decarbonization and provide co-benefits in terms of ecosystem services and landscape productivity. The biological engineering profession must be involved in the research and implementation of these solutions—developing new tools to aid in decision-making, methods to optimize across different objectives, and new messaging frameworks to assist in prioritizing among different options. Furthermore, the biological engineering curriculum should be redesigned to reflect the needs of carbon-based landscape management. While doing so, the biological engineering community has an opportunity to embed justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion within both the classroom and the profession. Together these transformations will enhance our capacity to use sustainable landscape management as an active tool to mitigate the risks of climate change.

Background

Global climate change impacts all human systems and landscapes [1], causing long-term changes of ecological function [2] and an economic cost more than twice current global gross domestic product [3]. While the primary way to prevent and slow these changes is to decarbonize the energy supply by reducing fossil fuel energy sources [4, 5], landscape-management solutions have a role to play and often deliver win-win successes on multiple metrics, beyond just climate [6]. In the United States their potential is equivalent to one-fifth of current net annual emissions [7]. These Nature-based Climate Solutions (NbCS) either harness the photosynthetic power of ecosystems to store carbon in soils and vegetation, or they reduce existing emissions of greenhouse gases from agricultural and other managed landscapes. Soil carbon storage strategies include peatland restoration, forest agriculture, residue retention and cover cropping, and increased photosynthesis [8]. Emissions reductions strategies in landscapes often focus on non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as N2O (via nutrient management [9]) and CH4 (through modified rice irrigation [10,11,12] or changes in cattle management [13]). Whole-farm and life-cycle or supply-chain approaches extend these concerns to reduce fuel use or otherwise limit CO2 emissions, though the variety of implementation strategies and paucity of data means that realistic depictions of NbCS in life cycle assessments remain challenging [14].

NbCS strategies provoke new ways of thinking about land management [15], policy-making [16], economic bookkeeping [17], and leadership [18], but in doing so introduce potential issues that must be addressed. While there is a large body of evidence that NbCS approaches work [19, 20], there is also considerable uncertainty in the range of achievable sequestration or emissions reduction, in appropriate management tools, and in generalizing findings from one set of conditions to another [21, 22]. Thus, questions remain on how to measure and predict land-atmosphere carbon exchange, soil carbon storage, and reduced emissions. Many NbCS will bring environmental co-benefits like biodiversity, sustainable food production, and improved water quality [23]. However, others may bring harms such as increased labor, fire risk, and unequitable societal impacts (e.g., environmental racism). There is also much to be learned about resource management with, and from, indigenous communities [24]; this insight includes fire management, traditional agriculture, and ways of knowledge.

Resolving the “wicked challenge” of multi-objective landscape management that includes climate and other co-benefits [25] will require new types of education for a new workforce, and training for existing workers. The biological engineering profession can lead this transition [26], as it is both uses applied science (i.e., engineering) and is an applied discipline (taking engineering concepts to living systems), blending elements of ecological engineering [27] with soil or landscape management and agricultural engineering [28, 29]. Work in a systems perspective at the interface of these disciplines is needed for challenges from climate change to agriculture [30, 31] and the resultant obligation to create a productive, resilient, and proactive “climate-smart agriculture” system [32]. The critical engagement of researchers in education regarding new metrics of what determines successful landscape management (e.g., regenerative agriculture, or sustainable intensification) is essential to both guide effective solutions and clearly communicate them to the public [33, 34]. Thus, in this essay, I bring attention to NbCS in a biological engineering context, highlighting research needs, new application areas, methods of education, and attention to diversity, inclusion, and equity.

Research, design, and education needs and new directions

Overview and directions

To develop and implement sustainable NbCS strategies, new engineering research is needed to build lasting and nimble socio-technical change [35]. Research needs include (1) designing new measurement tools (e.g., fully using artificial intelligence techniques, novel sensor development, etc. [36, 37]), (2) providing application expertise on how to control and optimize landscape performance, and (3) translating that knowledge into action by landscape managers who need help prioritizing conservation activities among other landscape benefits (such as food provision). This research must be reflective and iterative, willing to account for new innovations, drivers of societal or geographical change, and user or implementer needs [38]. Finally, these social and research needs should invite pedagogical reflection: how can these ideas be embedded into the classroom experience, and how can all students and learners be included?

Design new measurement tools and systems

Skills associated with biological engineering are needed to optimize measurement platforms at all sizes and domains to monitor landscape and management decisions and to guide individual decision making. At the large scale, to quantify and certify carbon capture or emission reductions methods, innovative multi-scale measurement platforms are needed [39]. Among many satellite observations and tools [40] we now have daily, 1-m satellite imagery (e.g., from Planet Labs) that provides an extraordinary, and under-utilized, opportunity to track land cover changes, land use dynamics, and plant response to weather or management [41, 42]. Application areas include mapping crop yield [43, 44], stress detection [45], and guiding precision agriculture [46]. However, these measurement and monitoring systems must be validated with technically challenging, on-the-ground measurements that require tailored instrumentation for each site. Popular research-scale approaches to better constrain carbon cycle processes in real time include eddy covariance [47, 48] and solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence [49, 50]. Better planning and advance modeling can increase the information gained by the deployment of these systems [51], and so can networked science [52,53,54,55].

Expertise is needed to reduce the time or technical commitment to measurements and to inform farm or landscape-level interventions. Slow, point-based estimates of leaf area index, a critical parameter for understanding landscape conditions, can be translated into estimates over larger spatial extents from RGB images on UAVs [56] or satellite products [57], or from models based on days after planting or degree day [58]. Work is still needed for challenging but essential measurements such as soil moisture or rice field inundation that are difficult to remotely sense due to canopy coverage and poor penetration within the soil [59]. However, both measures are critical for understanding the permanence of soil carbon [60] and the rate of CH4 emissions from rice fields [12]. At the farm scale, engineering skills are needed for creative approaches to low-cost tools to support field-level interventions. For example, new and inexpensive redox-sensitive films may guide water management in rice production or wetland or marsh restoration [61, 62]. User-facing decision support tools can help weigh a suite of options across a set of target metrics [63,64,65] and provide verification of measurable environmental impacts [66].

How to optimize the landscape across multiple services

What applications of biological engineering are there to resolve the challenge of implementing sustainable NbCS’s? A suite of new technologies is needed to sequester CO2 as soil organic carbon to enable both food and climate security – these include advanced rock weathering, agronomic interventions, and developing high yielding crops [67] – and they all must be tuned to their landscape and socio-economic setting. An agronomic intervention with quickly growing research interest and an open-ended solution is in the design and maintenance of a site- and application-appropriate microbiome. Whether through microbial or nutrient amendment, or other care, a healthy microbiome has potential to boost soil carbon conservation and raise crop yields [68, 69]. New experiments and tools, as well as fundamental knowledge on microbial communities and plant-microbe interactions, are needed to capture the diversity of possible benefits from expanded understanding of the microbiome [70,71,72].

Microbiome development and maintenance can support the larger material economy through the reuse of animal waste or plant residue. The American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) has engaged members with the circular economy as a means to transform food and agriculture systems, including to “regenerate natural systems” [73, 74]. While circular systems advocacy still needs to put a greater emphasis on biodiversity, this approach can boost soil carbon sequestration among a large range of ecosystem services [75, 76]. Circular economy methods on the landscape typically imply application of animal or plant waste products back onto the field for enhanced organic matter and field performance. The methods thus help reduce reliance on energy-intensive extraction for field applications of inorganic fertilizer while enhancing soil carbon inputs. How to do this well, and in different socio-economic contexts, is still challenging, and engineering design research and systems thinking are needed to find creative circular bioeconomy and bioproduct solutions [77, 78].

Translate ideas into action into action

Biological engineering expertise is needed in many areas of translating research and design approaches into practical NbCS strategies. Expertise is needed to advise and assess projects for effective climate finance of agricultural emissions reductions [79] or the use of green microfinance [80]. Land-based climate mitigation strategies are already cost-effective in many cases (up to 40%), and additional potential exists if costs can be lowered through technical innovation [81]. Biological and agricultural engineers can work to increase agricultural input use efficiency to complement other sustainability initiatives and regenerative practices in the food and agriculture sector [82]. Land use management and conservation is necessarily iterative [83], and the engineering disciplines work well in this setting – improving, testing, and innovating towards optimal solutions.

Implementation of NbCS depends on many enabling factors from states, communities, and actors, and in perceived reliability [84]. In my group’s research assessing the sustainability of different rice management techniques, we have also seen the benefit of social networks, as farmers can compare notes and encourage each other toward more efficient implementation [64]. This finding is consistent with other studies that demonstrate the value of training, networking, and motivation on practice implementation [85, 86]. Practitioners want to know—is this problem really the biggest priority? Often, life cycle assessments can help deliver that message in a more holistic manner, grounding solutions within a quantifiable framework. Fortunately, new developments in life cycle assessments can improve representations of soil carbon storage [87, 88], forest carbon cycling [89], and sustainable rice production practices [90]. Moreover, engineers can work with designers to develop and improve management tools to better convey best options and alternatives, with clear depictions of uncertainty, risk, cost, and benefit along a variety of decision metrics.

Curricular and program changes

To train the workforce and advance research towards sustainable NbCS implementation, new forms of education are needed alongside curriculum revision. In addition to embedding NbCS throughout the biological engineering curriculum, we must also provide tools for lifelong learners through cooperative extension, community outreach, and other channels. Within a biological engineering program, there are many ways to engage with NbCS, particularly as these programs are often taught in land-grant or similar universities with a tradition of place-based research, access to field research stations and expertise. As biological engineering degree programs have a variety of names and subject areas [91] and integrate many competencies [92] focusing on living systems [93], there is no one-size fits all solution for bringing NbCS into the classroom. However, in all these cases, coursework materials can be developed around the landscape (or other living systems) and their role in climate change solutions. While my home department is “Biological and Agricultural Engineering”, I encourage readers affiliated with Biomedical Engineering programs to also consider these topics in the context of their curriculum. Those issues could include the mental and physical health benefits of being near nature [94], or the potential impact of climate change on biomedical and public health interventions and outcomes [95]. Similarly, bioprocess engineering programs could continue work on higher-value products from traditional food and agricultural waste streams [96].

Engaging students with classroom learning strategies that mimic real-world problem-solving is one recommendation from a recent review of biological engineering education [97]. With this need in mind, I am working to develop a cross-campus undergraduate honors course whose central project would be an outline for Nature-based Climate Solutions strategy for my state, Arkansas, assessing scientific potential and political-economic opportunities. This project-oriented focus recognizes that localized and place-based environmental examples can enhance educational engagement and are also practical, taking advantage of local student knowledge and creating potentially impactful societal outcomes [98, 99]. In the course we would assess opportunities in Arkansas’s varied landscapes, including row crops, forestry, pasture, and urban areas. In each landscape type there will be scientific uncertainties, political and economic realities, and social expectations to contend with. In most geographic places—i.e., around any educational setting or university—there are a variety of landscapes in close proximity where students may have direct familiarity. An aim for the class is to motivate real change via letters on a state plan to the governor’s office or for the campus to increase its carbon neutrality efforts [100].

Curricular changes could enable NbCS education by revising both mandatory course materials and modifying elective course options. Recognizing the many skills needed to generate and sustain NbCS approaches, emphasis can be expanded on areas such as ecosystem ecology, plant ecophysiology, human decision making, agricultural and resource economics, modeling, or remote sensing that propel understanding of our landscapes and their spatio-temporal dynamics. The importance of NbCS can be integrated into existing Biological Engineering topic areas, such as green stormwater infrastructure, which can be designed to better sequester carbon in addition to its primary, stormwater retention and filtration roles [101, 102]. Methods courses which teach appropriate tools (such as Geographic Information Systems; GIS) or the code of ethics and the role of the engineer in society could use NbCS as the motivating example. Similarly, carbon accounting or the uncertainties associated with landscape change could be included within engineering economics instruction. My home department, among others, has emphasized sustainable food, water, and energy (following their well-studied ‘nexus’ [103, 104]); elevating carbon or climate to this list would help demonstrate its equal importance in course and degree design.

Landscape carbon management and NbCS could then be integrated into design and topic area courses, encouraged for design projects from first to final year, and curated to involve engagement with real clients and stakeholders while also meeting professional expectations. Professors of cooperative extension could come into the classroom as guest lecturers, demonstrating case studies of successful interventions and behavior change among landscape managers and agricultural producers [105]. In turn students may be attracted to this profession, which is known to provide economic and agricultural benefits to rural and other areas [106]. In the classroom, a complex systems perspective could be explored [107], emphasizing the challenge of balancing among different ecosystem services, trade-offs, and their economics, and teaching different types of problem-solving and presentation. In many cases these topics would provide instruction towards the Fundamentals of Engineering exam and eventual licensure. Capstone courses designed around the contemporary and complex challenges associated with NbCS could also be used to meet ABET accreditation requirements and desired student outcomes [108].

Beyond curricular change and shifts in higher education strategies, there is more work that engineering societies can do to enhance research and implementation of NbCS. NbCS needs are referenced only within “enhancing photosynthesis for agricultural productivity” in a recent discussion of emerging issues in biological engineering [109], and deep discussions of the role of biological engineering to play against climate change were missing. However, there are strong foundations on which to build: ASABE has a technical community on “Natural Resources & Environmental Systems”, and the Journal of Biological Engineering has “Ecological and environmental engineering” as a topic area. Together these outlets can push for further engagement on NbCS progress.

Justice, diversity, equity, and inclusion

Designing innovative NbCS strategies requires the creative involvement, knowledge, and lived experience of all people [110]. All peoples and cultures have experienced nature—and the management of landscapes—in different ways. We need to incorporate perspectives on the landscape—and on perceived solutions—from indigenous and other under-represented groups. There are landscape management and sustainability lessons to be learned from women [111], indigenous peoples [112, 113], and historically marginalized racial groups [114]. These communities must be incorporated into implementation plans, ensuring fair access to incentive programs and feedback on the co-benefits and negative effects of land management changes [115]. Diverse perspectives on land stewardship can also inform the classroom environment, by encouraging different perspectives and methods of learning, by bringing in diverse voices and readings, and by supporting indigenous communities on campus [116]. Training that includes more representation in the classroom—via inclusive curriculum design or other ways to hear diverse voices—can also create a more inclusive environment [117, 118], helping provide long-term benefits by diversifying the workforce. There have been many calls to diversify professions traditionally associated with landscape management that lack diverse representation [119], and intentionally remove obstacles that prevent full participation [120]. Implementing tested retention strategies such as mentorship, inclusion in high impact academic experiences, and re-training faculty on intentional inclusion can also help create a diverse and representative future workforce [121].

Conclusions and future perspectives

Mitigating climate change will alter our energy systems and landscapes and will alter the trajectory of our built and managed environments alike. Using our managed landscapes to respond to climate change is an opportunity to pursue alongside changes in the energy sector, but we must act quickly to develop research agendas, workforce training, and implementation strategies, as NbCS are slower and less direct than energy sector decarbonization approaches [122]. We will need the development of new tools, new approaches, and new education strategies. Like NbCS themselves, many of these initiatives would have spin-off co-benefits, advancing fundamental knowledge on landscape conservation practices, integration of other disciplines (from artificial intelligence to geography or political economy) into biological engineering, and active learning in the classrooms.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

ASABE:

American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers

CH4 :

methane

CO2 :

carbon dioxide

NbCS:

Nature-based Climate Solutions

N2O:

nitrous oxide

RGB:

red green blue

References

  1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Global Change Research Needs and Opportunities for 2022-2031; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2021. https://doi.org/10.17226/26055.

  2. Willis KJ, Jeffers ES, Tovar C. What makes a terrestrial ecosystem resilient? Science. 2018;359(6379):988–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar5439.

  3. Estrada F, Botzen WJW. Economic impacts and risks of climate change under failure and success of the Paris agreement. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2021;1504(1):95–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson CM, DeFries RS, Litterman R, Matson PA, Nepstad DC, Pacala S, et al. Natural climate solutions are not enough. Science. 2019;363(6430):933–4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2741.

  5. Welsby D, Price J, Pye S, Ekins P. Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5 °C world. Nature. 2021;597(7875):230–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03821-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Nasi R. The Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use: Significance toward “Net Zero.” Global Change Biol.  2022;28(6):1951–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16039.

  7. Fargione, J. E.; Bassett, S.; Boucher, T.; Bridgham, S. D.; Conant, R. T.; Cook-Patton, S. C.; Ellis, P. W.; Falcucci, A.; Fourqurean, J. W.; Gopalakrishna, T.; Gu, H.; Henderson, B.; Hurteau, M. D.; Kroeger, K. D.; Kroeger, T.; Lark, T. J.; Leavitt, S. M.; Lomax, G.; McDonald, R. I.; Megonigal, J. P.; Miteva, D. A.; Richardson, C. J.; Sanderman, J.; Shoch, D.; Spawn, S. A.; Veldman, J. W.; Williams, C. A.; Woodbury, P. B.; Zganjar, C.; Baranski, M.; Elias, P.; Houghton, R. A.; Landis, E.; McGlynn, E.; Schlesinger, W. H.; Siikamaki, J. V.; Sutton-Grier, A. E.; Griscom, B. W. Natural Climate Solutions for the United States. Science Advances 2018;4(11):eaat1869. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat1869.

  8. Lal R. Negative emission farming. J Soil Water Conserv. 2021;76(3):61A–4A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2021.0419A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Maaz TM, Sapkota TB, Eagle AJ, Kantar MB, Bruulsema TW, Majumdar K. Meta-analysis of yield and nitrous oxide outcomes for nitrogen Management in Agriculture. Glob Chang Biol. 2021;27(11):2343–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Yan X, Akiyama H, Yagi K, Akimoto H. Global estimations of the inventory and mitigation potential of methane Emissions from Rice cultivation conducted using the 2006 intergovernmental panel on climate change guidelines. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2009;23(2):GB2002. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sander, B. O.; Wassmann, R.; Siopongco, J.; Hoanh, C. T.; Johnston, R.; Smakhtin, V. Mitigating greenhouse gas Emissions from Rice production through water-saving techniques: potential, Adoption and Empirical Evidence, Climate Change Agricultural Water Manag Develop Countries. 2015;8:193. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780643663.0193.

  12. Runkle BRK, Suvočarev K, Reba ML, Reavis CW, Smith SF, Chiu Y-L, et al. Methane emission reductions from the alternate wetting and drying of Rice fields detected using the Eddy covariance method. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53(2):671–81. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05535.

  13. Herrero M, Henderson B, Havlík P, Thornton PK, Conant RT, Smith P, et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nature Clim Change. 2016;6(5):452–61. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2925.

  14. Terlouw T, Bauer C, Rosa L, Mazzotti M. Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide removal Technologies: a critical review. Energy Environ Sci. 2021;14(4):1701–21. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EE03757E.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Northrup, D. L.; Basso, B.; Wang, M. Q.; Morgan, C. L. S.; Benfey, P. N. Novel Technologies for Emission Reduction Complement Conservation Agriculture to Achieve Negative Emissions from Row-Crop Production. PNAS. 2021;118(28). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022666118.

  16. Nightingale AJ, Eriksen S, Taylor M, Forsyth T, Pelling M, Newsham A, et al. Beyond technical fixes: climate solutions and the great derangement. Clim Dev. 2020;12(4):343–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1624495.

  17. Bednar J, Obersteiner M, Baklanov A, Thomson M, Wagner F, Geden O, et al. Operationalizing the net-negative carbon economy. Nature. 2021;596(7872):377–83. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03723-9.

  18. Caviglia-Harris, J.; Hodges, K.; Helmuth, B.; Bennett, E.; Galvin, K.; Krebs, M.; Lips, K.; Lowman, M.; Schulte, L.; Schuur, E. The Six Dimensions of Collective Leadership That Advance Sustainability Objectives: Rethinking What It Means to Be an Academic Leader. Ecol Soc. 2021;26(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12396-260309.

  19. Griscom BW, Adams J, Ellis PW, Houghton RA, Lomax G, Miteva DA, et al. Natural Climate Solutions. PNAS. 2017:201710465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114.

  20. Nolan CJ, Field CB, Mach KJ. Constraints and enablers for increasing carbon storage in the terrestrial biosphere. Nat Rev Earth Environ. 2021;2(6):436–46. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00166-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Seddon N, Chausson A, Berry P, Girardin CAJ, Smith A, Turner B. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2020;375(1794):20190120. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pongratz J, Schwingshackl C, Bultan S, Obermeier W, Havermann F, Guo S. Land use effects on climate: current state, recent Progress, and emerging topics. Curr Clim Change Rep. 2021;7(4):99–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-021-00178-y.

  23. Mori AS, Dee LE, Gonzalez A, Ohashi H, Cowles J, Wright AJ, et al. Biodiversity–productivity relationships are key to nature-based climate solutions. Nat Clim Chang. 2021;11(6):543–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01062-1.

  24. Townsend J, Moola F, Craig M-K. Indigenous peoples are critical to the success of nature-based solutions to climate change. FACETS. 2020;5(1):551–6. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2019-0058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. DeFries R, Nagendra H. Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science. 2017;356(6335):265–70. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal1950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Stuart BJ. Addressing the grand challenge of atmospheric carbon dioxide: geologic sequestration vs. Biological Recycling. J Biol Eng. 2011;5(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-1611-5-14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gattie DK, Smith MC, Tollner EW, McCutcheon SC. The emergence of ecological engineering as a discipline. Ecol Eng. 2003;20(5):409–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2003.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chancellor, W. History of Changes in Technical Subject Matter of ASAE’S Periodicals: 1950-1999; ASABE paper no. 078020; ASABE: St. Joseph, MI, 2007. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.22885.

  29. Ting KC. Development and perspectives of agricultural engineering towards biological/Biosystems engineering. J Agricultural Eng. 2010;41(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2010.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Monier E, Xu L, Snyder R. Uncertainty in future agro-climate projections in the United States and benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11(5):055001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/055001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Leng, G. Keeping Global Warming within 1.5 °C Reduces Future Risk of Yield Loss in the United States: A Probabilistic Modeling Approach. Sci Total Environ. 2018;644:52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.344.

  32. Lipper L, Thornton P, Campbell BM, Baedeker T, Braimoh A, Bwalya M, et al. Climate-Smart Agriculture for Food Security. Nature Clim Change. 2014;4(12):1068–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2437.

  33. Giller KE, Hijbeek R, Andersson JA, Sumberg J. Regenerative Agriculture: An Agronomic Perspective. Outlook Agric. 2021;0030727021998063(1):13–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727021998063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Silva JV, Reidsma P, Baudron F, Laborte AG, Giller KE, van Ittersum MK. How sustainable is sustainable intensification? Assessing Yield Gaps at Field and Farm Level across the Globe. Global Food Security. 2021;30:100552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Geels FW. Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms and elaborations of the multi-level perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2019;39:187–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Keskin H, Grunwald S, Harris WG. Digital mapping of soil carbon fractions with machine learning. Geoderma. 2019;339:40–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.12.037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Andries A, Morse S, Murphy RJ, Lynch J, Mota B, Woolliams ER. Can current earth observation Technologies provide useful information on soil organic carbon stocks for environmental land management policy? Sustainability. 2021;13(21):12074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. de Boon A, Sandström C, Rose DC. Governing agricultural innovation: a comprehensive framework to underpin sustainable transitions. J Rural Stud. 2021;89:407–22.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.07.019.

  39. Guan K, Jin Z, DeLucia EH, West P, Peng B, Tang J, et al. A Roadmap toward Scalably Quantifying Field-Level Agricultural Carbon Outcomes. eartharxiv preprint. 2022:2905. https://doi.org/10.31223/X5QW7J.

  40. Wang, F.; Harindintwali, J. D.; Yuan, Z.; Wang, M.; Wang, F.; Li, S.; Yin, Z.; Huang, L.; Fu, Y.; Li, L.; Chang, S. X.; Zhang, L.; Rinklebe, J.; Yuan, Z.; Zhu, Q.; Xiang, L.; Tsang, D. C. W.; Xu, L.; Jiang, X.; Liu, J.; Wei, N.; Kästner, M.; Zou, Y.; Ok, Y. S.; Shen, J.; Peng, D.; Zhang, W.; Barceló, D.; Zhou, Y.; Bai, Z.; Li, B.; Zhang, B.; Wei, K.; Cao, H.; Tan, Z.; Zhao, L.; He, X.; Zheng, J.; Bolan, N.; Liu, X.; Huang, C.; Dietmann, S.; Luo, M.; Sun, N.; Gong, J.; Gong, Y.; Brahushi, F.; Zhang, T.; Xiao, C.; Li, X.; Chen, W.; Jiao, N.; Lehmann, J.; Zhu, Y.-G.; Jin, H.; Schäffer, A.; Tiedje, J. M.; Chen, J. M. Technologies and Perspectives for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. Innovation 2021;2(4):100180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100180.

  41. Houborg R, McCabe MF. High-resolution NDVI from Planet’s constellation of earth observing Nano-satellites: a new data source for precision agriculture. Remote Sens. 2016;8(9):768. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8090768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Houborg R, McCabe MF. A Cubesat enabled Spatio-temporal enhancement method (CESTEM) utilizing planet, Landsat and MODIS data. Remote Sens Environ. 2018;209:211–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.02.067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lobell DB, Thau D, Seifert C, Engle E, Little B. A scalable satellite-based crop yield mapper. Remote Sens Environ. 2015;164:324–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.04.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ziliani MG, Altaf MU, Aragon B, Houborg R, Franz TE, Lu Y, et al. Early season prediction of within-Field crop yield variability by assimilating CubeSat data into a crop model. Agric For Meteorol. 2022;313:108736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108736.

  45. Gerhards M, Schlerf M, Mallick K, Udelhoven T. Challenges and future perspectives of multi−/hyperspectral thermal infrared remote sensing for crop water-stress detection: a review. Remote Sens. 2019;11(10):1240. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11101240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sishodia RP, Ray RL, Singh SK. Applications of remote sensing in precision agriculture: a review. Remote Sens. 2020;12(19):3136. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12193136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Baldocchi, D. D. Assessing the Eddy covariance technique for evaluating carbon dioxide exchange rates of ecosystems: past, Present and Future. Global Change Biol. 2003;9(4):479–2. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00629.x.

  48. Hemes KS, Runkle BRK, Novick KA, Baldocchi DD, Field CB. An ecosystem-scale flux measurement strategy to assess natural climate solutions. Environ Sci Technol. 2021;55(6):3494–504. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c06421.

  49. MacBean N, Maignan F, Bacour C, Lewis P, Peylin P, Guanter L, et al. Strong constraint on modelled global carbon uptake using solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence data. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):1973. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20024-w.

  50. Gu L, Wood JD, Chang CY-Y, Sun Y, Riggs JS. Advancing terrestrial ecosystem science with a novel automated measurement system for Sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence for integration with Eddy covariance flux networks. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences. 2019;124(1):127–46. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JG004742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Metzger S, Durden D, Paleri S, Sühring M, Butterworth BJ, Florian C, et al. Novel approach to observing system simulation experiments improves information gain of surface–atmosphere Field measurements. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques. 2021;14(11):6929–54. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-6929-2021.

  52. Brown ME, Ihli M, Hendrick O, Delgado-Arias S, Escobar VM, Griffith P. Social network and content analysis of the north American carbon program as a scientific Community of Practice. Soc Networks. 2016;44:226–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2015.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Runkle, B. R. K.; Rigby, J. R.; Reba, M. L.; Anapalli, S. S.; Bhattacharjee, J.; Krauss, K. W.; Liang, L.; Locke, M. A.; Novick, K. A.; Sui, R.; Suvočarev, K.; White, P. M. Delta-Flux: An Eddy Covariance Network for a Climate-Smart Lower Mississippi Basin. Agricultural & Environ Letters. 2017;2(1):170003(1–5). https://doi.org/10.2134/ael2017.01.0003.

  54. Novick KA, Biederman JA, Desai AR, Litvak ME, Moore DJP, Scott RL, et al. The AmeriFlux network: a Coalition of the Willing. Agric For Meteorol. 2018;249:444–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.10.009.

  55. Dorigo, W.; Himmelbauer, I.; Aberer, D.; Schremmer, L.; Petrakovic, I.; Zappa, L.; Preimesberger, W.; Xaver, A.; Annor, F.; Ardö, J.; Baldocchi, D.; Bitelli, M.; Blöschl, G.; Bogena, H.; Brocca, L.; Calvet, J.-C.; Camarero, J. J.; Capello, G.; Choi, M.; Cosh, M. C.; van de Giesen, N.; Hajdu, I.; Ikonen, J.; Jensen, K. H.; Kanniah, K. D.; de Kat, I.; Kirchengast, G.; Kumar Rai, P.; Kyrouac, J.; Larson, K.; Liu, S.; Loew, A.; Moghaddam, M.; Martínez Fernández, J.; Mattar Bader, C.; Morbidelli, R.; Musial, J. P.; Osenga, E.; Palecki, M. A.; Pellarin, T.; Petropoulos, G. P.; Pfeil, I.; Powers, J.; Robock, A.; Rüdiger, C.; Rummel, U.; Strobel, M.; Su, Z.; Sullivan, R.; Tagesson, T.; Varlagin, A.; Vreugdenhil, M.; Walker, J.; Wen, J.; Wenger, F.; Wigneron, J. P.; Woods, M.; Yang, K.; Zeng, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zreda, M.; Dietrich, S.; Gruber, A.; van Oevelen, P.; Wagner, W.; Scipal, K.; Drusch, M.; Sabia, R. The International Soil Moisture Network: Serving Earth System Science for over a Decade. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 2021;25(11):5749–804. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5749-2021.

  56. Yamaguchi T, Tanaka Y, Imachi Y, Yamashita M, Katsura K. Feasibility of combining deep learning and RGB images obtained by unmanned aerial vehicle for leaf area index estimation in Rice. Remote Sens. 2021;13(1):84. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13010084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Campos-Taberner M, García-Haro FJ, Busetto L, Ranghetti L, Martínez B, Gilabert MA, et al. A critical comparison of remote sensing leaf area index estimates over Rice-cultivated areas: from Sentinel-2 and Landsat-7/8 to MODIS, GEOV1 and EUMETSAT polar system. Remote Sens. 2018;10(5):763. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050763.

  58. Boschetti, M.; Busetto, L.; Ranghetti, L.; Haro, J. G.; Campos-Taberner, M.; Confalonieri, R. Testing Multi-Sensors Time Series of Lai Estimates to Monitor Rice Phenology: Preliminary Results. In IGARSS 2018–2018 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium; 2018; pp 8221–8224. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2018.8518494.

  59. Li Z-L, Leng P, Zhou C, Chen K-S, Zhou F-C, Shang G-F. Soil moisture retrieval from remote sensing measurements: current knowledge and directions for the future. Earth Sci Rev. 2021;218:103673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Falloon P, Jones CD, Ades M, Paul K. Direct soil moisture controls of future global soil carbon changes: an important source of uncertainty. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2011;25(3):14 PP. https://doi.org/201110.1029/2010GB003938.

  61. Evans AE, Limmer MA, Seyfferth AL. Indicator of redox in soil (IRIS) films as a water management tool for Rice farmers. J Environ Manag. 2021;294:112920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Limmer MA, Evans AE, Seyfferth AL. The IRIS imager: a freeware program for quantification of paint removal on IRIS films. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2021;85(6):2210–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Arulnathan V, Heidari MD, Doyon M, Li E, Pelletier N. Farm-level decision support tools: a review of methodological choices and their consistency with principles of sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod. 2020;256:120410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Moreno-García B, Coronel E, Reavis CW, Suvočarev K, Runkle BRK. Environmental sustainability assessment of Rice management practices using decision support tools. J Clean Prod. 2021;315:128135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Sarabi S, Han Q, de Vries B, Romme AGL. The nature-based solutions planning support system: a playground for site and solution prioritization. Sustain Cities Soc. 2022;78:103608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Thomson, A.; Ehiemere, C.; Carlson, J.; Matlock, M.; Barnes, E.; Moody, L.; DeGeus, D. Defining Sustainability as Measurable Improvement in the Environment: Lessons from a Supply Chain Program for Agriculture in the United States. In Sustainability Perspectives: Science, Policy and Practice: A Global View of Theories, Policies and Practice in Sustainable Development; Khaiter, P. A., Erechtchoukova, M. G., Eds.; Strategies for Sustainability; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2020; pp 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19550-2_7.

  67. Horton P, Long SP, Smith P, Banwart SA, Beerling DJ. Technologies to deliver food and climate security through agriculture. Nat Plants. 2021;7(3):250–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-021-00877-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Busby PE, Soman C, Wagner MR, Friesen ML, Kremer J, Bennett A, et al. Research priorities for harnessing plant microbiomes in sustainable agriculture. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(3):e2001793. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001793.

  69. Ray P, Lakshmanan V, Labbé JL, Craven KD. Microbe to microbiome: a paradigm shift in the application of microorganisms for sustainable agriculture. Front Microbiol. 2020;11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.622926.

  70. Chaparro JM, Sheflin AM, Manter DK, Vivanco JM. Manipulating the soil microbiome to increase soil health and plant fertility. Biol Fertil Soils. 2012;48(5):489–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-012-0691-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Dubey A, Malla MA, Khan F, Chowdhary K, Yadav S, Kumar A, et al. Soil microbiome: a key player for conservation of soil health under changing climate. Biodivers Conserv. 2019;28(8):2405–29 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01760-5.

  72. Kumawat KC, Razdan N, Saharan K. Rhizospheric microbiome: bio-based emerging strategies for sustainable agriculture development and future perspectives. Microbiol Res. 2022;254:126901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2021.126901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Jones JW, Verma BP, Nokes S, Verma L, Zazueta F, Rider A. Toward circular food and agricultural systems. Resource Magazine. 2020;27(3):15–7.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Verma, B.; Jones, J. Last Word From Linear to Circular, An Ambitious but Necessary Goal. Resource Magazine. ASABE: St. Joseph, 2021, pp. 38–39.

  75. Buchmann-Duck J, Beazley KF. An urgent call for circular economy advocates to acknowledge its limitations in conserving biodiversity. Sci Total Environ. 2020;727:138602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Priyadarshini P, Abhilash PC. Fostering sustainable land restoration through circular economy-governed transitions. Restor Ecol. 2020;28(4):719–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Jacobson MJ. Problem Solving, Cognition, and complex systems: differences between experts and novices. Complexity. 2001;6(3):41–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Stegmann, P.; Londo, M.; Junginger, M. The Circular Bioeconomy: Its Elements and Role in European Bioeconomy Clusters. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X. 2020;6:100029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcrx.2019.100029.

  79. Khatri-Chhetri A, Sapkota TB, Sander BO, Arango J, Nelson KM, Wilkes A. Financing climate change mitigation in agriculture: assessment of investment cases. Environ Res Lett. 2021;16(12):124044. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac3605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Huybrechs F, Bastiaensen J, Van Hecken G. Exploring the potential contribution of green microfinance in transformations to sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2019;41:85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Roe, S.; Streck, C.; Beach, R.; Busch, J.; Chapman, M.; Daioglou, V.; Deppermann, A.; Doelman, J.; Emmet-Booth, J.; Engelmann, J.; Fricko, O.; Frischmann, C.; Funk, J.; Grassi, G.; Griscom, B.; Havlik, P.; Hanssen, S.; Humpenöder, F.; Landholm, D.; Lomax, G.; Lehmann, J.; Mesnildrey, L.; Nabuurs, G.-J.; Popp, A.; Rivard, C.; Sanderman, J.; Sohngen, B.; Smith, P.; Stehfest, E.; Woolf, D.; Lawrence, D. Land-Based Measures to Mitigate Climate Change: Potential and Feasibility by Country. Global Change Biol. 2021;27(23):6025–6058. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15873.

  82. Clark M, Tilman D. Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ Res Lett. 2017;12(6):064016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Wardropper CB, Esman LA, Harden SC, Masuda YJ, Ranjan P, Weigel C, Ferraro PJ, Prokopy LS, Reddy SMW. Applying a “Fail-Fast” Approach to Conservation in US Agriculture. Conserv Sci Pract. 2022;4(3):e0619. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.619.

  84. Schulte I, Eggers J, Nielsen JØ, Fuss S. What influences the implementation of natural climate solutions? A systematic map and review of the evidence. Environ Res Lett. 2021;17(1):013002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Nicholson C, Barr N, Kentish A, Dowling PM, McCormick LH, Palmer M, et al. A research–extension model for encouraging the adoption of productive and sustainable practice in high rainfall grazing areas. Aust J Exp Agric. 2003;43(8):685–94. https://doi.org/10.1071/ea02212.

  86. Baumgart-Getz A, Prokopy LS, Floress K. Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: a Meta-analysis of the adoption literature. J Environ Manag. 2012;96(1):17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Goglio P, Smith WN, Grant BB, Desjardins RL, McConkey BG, Campbell CA, et al. Accounting for soil carbon changes in agricultural life cycle assessment (LCA): a review. J Clean Prod. 2015;104:23–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.040.

  88. Vidal Legaz, B.; Maia De Souza, D.; Teixeira, R. F. M.; Antón, A.; Putman, B.; Sala, S. Soil Quality, Properties, and Functions in Life Cycle Assessment: An Evaluation of Models. J Clean Prod. 2017;140:502–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.077.

  89. Helin T, Sokka L, Soimakallio S, Pingoud K, Pajula T. Approaches for inclusion of Forest carbon cycle in life cycle assessment – a review. GCB Bioenergy. 2013;5(5):475–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Fertitta-Roberts C, Oikawa PY, Darrel Jenerette G. Evaluating the GHG mitigation-potential of alternate wetting and drying in Rice through life cycle assessment. Sci Total Environ. 2019;653:1343–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Kaleita AL, Raman DR. A Rose by any other name: an analysis of agricultural and biological engineering undergraduate curricula. Trans ASABE. 2012;55(6):2371–8. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.42480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Briassoulis, D.; Gallego, E.; Marco Pantaleo, A.; M. Holden, N.; Owende, P.; C. Ting, K.; Mallikarjunan, K. the “threads” of Biosystems engineering. Trans ASABE. 2014;57(1):307–30. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.57.10185.

  93. Tao BY, Allen DK, Okos MR. The evolution of biological engineering. Int J Eng Educ. 2006;22(1):45.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Lee ACK, Maheswaran R. The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the evidence. J Public Health. 2011;33(2):212–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdq068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Watts, N.; Adger, W. N.; Agnolucci, P.; Blackstock, J.; Byass, P.; Cai, W.; Chaytor, S.; Colbourn, T.; Collins, M.; Cooper, A.; Cox, P. M.; Depledge, J.; Drummond, P.; Ekins, P.; Galaz, V.; Grace, D.; Graham, H.; Grubb, M.; Haines, A.; Hamilton, I.; Hunter, A.; Jiang, X.; Li, M.; Kelman, I.; Liang, L.; Lott, M.; Lowe, R.; Luo, Y.; Mace, G.; Maslin, M.; Nilsson, M.; Oreszczyn, T.; Pye, S.; Quinn, T.; Svensdotter, M.; Venevsky, S.; Warner, K.; Xu, B.; Yang, J.; Yin, Y.; Yu, C.; Zhang, Q.; Gong, P.; Montgomery, H.; Costello, A. Health and Climate Change: Policy Responses to Protect Public Health. Lancet. 2015;386(10006):1861–1914.. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60854-6.

  96. Garcia D, You F. Systems engineering opportunities for agricultural and organic waste Management in the Food–Water–Energy Nexus. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2017.08.004.

  97. Diefes-Dux H, Frontier A. Discipline-based education research to advance authentic learning in agricultural and biological engineering. Trans ASABE. 2021;64(3):987–95. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.14422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Wals AEJ, Brody M, Dillon J, Stevenson RB. Convergence between science and environmental education. Science. 2014;344(6184):583–4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1250515.

  99. Zaval L, Cornwell JFM. Effective education and communication strategies to promote environmental engagement. Eur J Educ. 2017;52(4):477–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Barron AR, Domeshek M, Metz LE, Draucker LC, Strong AL. Carbon neutrality should not be the end goal: lessons for institutional climate action from U.S. higher education. One Earth. 2021;4(9):1248–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.08.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Kavehei E, Jenkins GA, Adame MF, Lemckert C. Carbon sequestration potential for mitigating the carbon footprint of green Stormwater infrastructure. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2018;94:1179–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Shafique M, Xue X, Luo X. An overview of carbon sequestration of green roofs in urban areas. Urban For Urban Green. 2020;47:126515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Hoff, H. Understanding the Nexus: Background Paper for the Bonn2011 Nexus Conference. 2011. Http://www.Diva-Portal.Org/Smash/Record.Jsf?Pid=diva2:465875.

  104. FAO. The Water-Energy-Food Nexus: A New Approach in Support of Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture. FAO, Rome 2014. Http://Www.Fao.Org/3/a-Bl496e.Pdf.

  105. Atiles JH. Cooperative extension competencies for the community engagement professional. J Higher Educ Outreach Engagement. 2019;23(1):107–27.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Wang, S. L. Cooperative Extension System: trends and economic impacts on U.S. agriculture. Choices. 2014;29(1):1–8.

  107. York S, Lavi R, Dori YJ, Orgill M. Applications of systems thinking in STEM education. J Chem Educ. 2019;96(12):2742–51. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Meah K, Hake D, Wilkerson SD. A multidisciplinary capstone design project to satisfy ABET student outcomes. Educ Res Int. 2020;2020:e9563782. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9563782.

  109. Wintle, B. C.; Boehm, C. R.; Rhodes, C.; Molloy, J. C.; Millett, P.; Adam, L.; Breitling, R.; Carlson, R.; Casagrande, R.; Dando, M.; Doubleday, R.; Drexler, E.; Edwards, B.; Ellis, T.; Evans, N. G.; Hammond, R.; Haseloff, J.; Kahl, L.; Kuiken, T.; Lichman, B. R.; Matthewman, C. A.; Napier, J. A.; ÓhÉigeartaigh, S. S.; Patron, N. J.; Perello, E.; Shapira, P.; Tait, J.; Takano, E.; Sutherland, W. J. A Transatlantic Perspective on 20 Emerging Issues in Biological Engineering. eLife. 2017;6:e30247. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.30247.

  110. Smith-Doerr L, Alegria SN, Sacco T. How diversity matters in the US science and engineering workforce: a critical review considering integration in teams, fields, and organizational contexts. Engag Sci Technol Soc. 2017;3:139–53. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Glazebrook T, Opoku E. Gender and sustainability: learning from Women’s farming in Africa. Sustainability. 2020;12(24):10483. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Ramos-Castillo A, Castellanos EJ, Galloway McLean K. Indigenous peoples, local communities and climate change mitigation. Clim Chang. 2017;140(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1873-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Varghese J, Crawford SS. A cultural framework for indigenous, local, and science knowledge systems in ecology and natural resource management. Ecol Monogr. 2021;91(1):e01431. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Watkins SL, Gerrish E. The relationship between urban forests and race: a Meta-analysis. J Environ Manag. 2018;209:152–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Hartge, A.; Guo, L.; Gupta, T.; De La Fuente, D. Diversity, Equity, and Justice in Voluntary Carbon Markets. 2021. https://doi.org/10.25611/FG69-FA12.

  116. Ketchum, Q. J. Indigenizing ASABE: Why We Should, and How We Can. Resource Magazine. ASABE: St. Joseph, MI 2021, pp. 19–22.

  117. Winberg, S.; Winberg, C. Using a Social Justice Approach to Decolonize an Engineering Curriculum. In 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON); 2017; pp 248–254. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2017.7942855.

  118. Hernandez PR, Bloodhart B, Adams AS, Barnes RT, Burt M, Clinton SM, et al. Role modeling is a viable retention strategy for undergraduate women in the geosciences. Geosphere. 2018;14(6):2585–93. https://doi.org/10.1130/GES01659.1.

  119. Carter TL, Jennings LL, Pressler Y, Gallo AC, Berhe AA, Marín-Spiotta E, et al. Towards diverse representation and inclusion in soil science in the United States. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2021;85(4):963–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20210.

  120. Berhe AA, Barnes RT, Hastings MG, Mattheis A, Schneider B, Williams BM, et al. Scientists from historically excluded groups face a hostile obstacle course. Nat Geosci. 2021;15(1):1–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00868-0.

  121. Lisberg, A.; Woods, B. Mentorship, Mindset and Learning Strategies: An Integrative Approach to Increasing Underrepresented Minority Student Retention in a STEM Undergraduate Program. J STEM Educ 2018;19(3).

  122. Qin Z, Griscom B, Huang Y, Yuan W, Chen X, Dong W, et al. Delayed impact of natural climate solutions. Glob Chang Biol. 2021;27(2):215–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15413.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank the U.S. National Science Foundation under CAREER program award 1752083 and the University of Arkansas for a fall 2021 sabbatical leave. This work benefited from many interactions with past and present members my research group, my many collaborators, and the fledgling Natural Climate Solutions working group in AmeriFlux.

Funding

U.S. National Science Foundation under CAREER program award 1752083 and the University of Arkansas for a fall 2021 sabbatical leave.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, USA

    Benjamin R. K. Runkle

Authors
  1. Benjamin R. K. Runkle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The study was fully designed, analyzed and written by the author. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

Benjamin Runkle, is an Associate Professor in the University of Arkansas Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering. He leads a research group (runkle.uark.edu) that studies globally relevant landscapes through the lens of the interconnected carbon and water cycles. His research on rice production practices has helped quantify a water-saving irrigation technique that significantly decreases the greenhouse gas production of these food-providing landscapes.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin R. K. Runkle.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Runkle, B.R.K. Review: biological engineering for nature-based climate solutions. J Biol Eng 16, 7 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13036-022-00287-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13036-022-00287-8

Keywords

Journal of Biological Engineering

ISSN: 1754-1611