Climate mitigation potential of natural climate solutions and clean energy on The Nature Conservancy properties in California, USA

19. Cropscape [Internet]. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer. C2018 – [cited 2023 Nov 14]. Available from: https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ 20. Soil Survey Staff [Internet]. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Natural Resource Conserva- tion Service, United States Department of Agriculture. c2017 –[cited 2023 Nov 14]. Available from: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/resources/data-and-reports/soil-survey-geographic-database-ssurgo 21. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-National Wetlands Inventory [Internet]. Washington (DC):U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. c2019 –cited [2023 Nov 24]. Available from: https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory 22. Heady WN, Cohen BS, Gleason MG, Morris JN, Newkirk SG, Klausmeyer KR. Conserving California’s coastal habitats: a legacy and a future with sea level rise [Internet]. Report. San Francisco (CA): The Nature Conservancy; California State Coastal Conservancy. 2018 [cited 2023 Nov 14]. Available from: https://www.scienceforconservation.org/products/coastal-assessment 23. Mengist W, Soromessa T, Legese G. Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta- analysis for environmental science research. MethodsX. 2020; 7:100777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex. 2019.100777 PMID: 31993339 24. Matzek V, Lewis D, O’Geen A, Lennox M, Hogan SD, Feirer ST, et al. Increases in soil and woody bio- mass carbon stocks as a result of rangeland riparian restoration. Carbon balance and management. 2020; 15:1–15.

25. Matzek V, Stella J, Ropion P. Development of a carbon calculator tool for riparian forest restoration. Applied vegetation science. 2018; 21(4):584–594. 26. EPA.gov [Internet]. Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories; c 2021 [cited 2023 Nov 14]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_mar2020. pdf 27. EPA.gov [Internet]. Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Energy and the Environment; c 2023 [cited 2023 Nov 14. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies- calculator. 28. Perkins O, Alexander P, Arneth A, Brown C, Millington JD, Rounsevell M. Toward quantification of the feasible potential of land-based carbon dioxide removal. One Earth. 2023; 6(12):1638–51. 29. Nabuurs GJ, Mrabet R, Hatab AA, Bustamante M, Clark H, Havlı´k P, et al. Agriculture, forestry and other land uses (AFOLU). In Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change: Cambridge Univer- sity Press; 2023. p. 747–860). 30. Ellis PW, Page AM, Wood S, Fargione J, Masuda YJ, Carrasco Denney V, et al. The principles of natu- ral climate solutions. Nature Communications. 2024; 15(1):547. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023- 44425-2 PMID: 38263156 31. Hayashi A, Sano F, Akimoto K. On the feasibility of cropland and forest area expansions required to achieve long-term temperature targets. Sustain Sci. 2020; 15:817–834. 32. Barbato CT, Strong AL. Farmer perspectives on carbon markets incentivizing agricultural soil carbon sequestration. Climate Action. 2023; 2(1):26.

33. Roe S, Streck C, Beach R, Busch J, Chapman M, Daioglou V, et al. Land-based measures to mitigate climate change: Potential and feasibility by country. Global Change Biology. 2021; 27(23):6025–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15873 PMID: 34636101 34. Griscom BW, Busch J, Cook-Patton SC, Ellis PW, Funk J, Leavitt SM, et al. National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2020; 375(1794):20190126. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0126 PMID: 31983330 35. Cook-Patton SC, Gopalakrishna T, Daigneault A, Leavitt SM, Platt J, Scull SM, et al. Lower cost and more feasible options to restore forest cover in the contiguous United States for climate mitigation. One Earth. 2020; 3(6):739–52. 36. Novick KA, Keenan TF, Anderegg WR, Normile CP, Runkle BR, Oldfield EE, et al. We need a solid sci- entific basis for nature-based climate solutions in the United States. Proceedings of the National Acad- emy of Sciences. 2024; 121(14):e2318505121. 37. Schlesinger WH, Amundson R. Managing for soil carbon sequestration: Let’s get realistic. Glob Change Biol. 2019; 25:386–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14478 PMID: 30485613 38. Anderson CM, DeFries RS, Litterman R, Matson PA, Nepstad DC, Pacala S, et al. Natural climate solu- tions are not enough. Science. 2019; 363(6430):933–4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2741 PMID: 30819953 39. Schulte I, Eggers J, Nielsen JØ, Fuss S. What influences the implementation of natural climate solu-

tions? A systematic map and review of the evidence. Environmental Research Letters. 2022; 17 (1):013002. PLOS ONE Climate mitigation potential of natural climate solutions and clean energy: The nature conservancy, California PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311195 October 21, 2024 14 / 14