Advertisement

Science Bulletin

, Volume 60, Issue 6, pp 598–606 | Cite as

Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions through replacement of chemical fertilizer with organic manure in a temperate farmland

  • Haitao Liu
  • Jing Li
  • Xiao Li
  • Yanhai Zheng
  • Sufei Feng
  • Gaoming Jiang
Article Earth Sciences

Abstract

Burning crop residues and excessive use of chemical fertilizers results in an enormous waste of biological resources, which further weakens the potential capacity of the agro-ecosystem as a carbon sink. To explore the potential of farmlands acting as a carbon sink without yield losses, we conducted an experiment on a temperate eco-farm in eastern rural China. Crop residues were applied to cattle feed, and the composted cattle manure was returned to cropland with a winter wheat and maize rotation. Four different proportions of fertilizers were designed: 100 % cattle manure, 100 % mineral nitrogen, 75 % cattle manure plus 25 % mineral nitrogen, and 50 % cattle manure plus 50 % mineral nitrogen. Crop yield and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were carefully calculated according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 2006. Our results showed that replacing chemical fertilizer with organic manure significantly decreased the emission of GHGs. Yields of wheat and corn also increased as the soil fertility was improved by the application of cattle manure. Totally replacing chemical fertilizer with organic manure decreased GHG emissions, which reversed the agriculture ecosystem from a carbon source (+2.7 t CO2-eq. hm−2 year−1) to a carbon sink (−8.8 t CO2-eq. hm−2 year−1). Our findings provide useful insights for improving agricultural ecosystems under global change scenarios.

Keywords

Crop residue Chemical fertilizer Cattle manure Crop yield Greenhouse gas emissions Climate change 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was jointly supported by the Key Strategic Project of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (KSZD-EW-Z-012-2) and the National Science and Technology Support Program (2012BAD14B00). We acknowledge Dr. Caihong Li and Dr. Yong Li of Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences for their advices and help in the statistical analysis. Special thanks go to the staff of the Eco-farm Research Station of Shandong Agricultural University for providing living facilities during the experimental run.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11434_2014_679_MOESM1_ESM.doc (56 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 56 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    FAO (2011) Organic farming and climate change mitigation. A report of the Round Table on Organic Agriculture and Climate Change. Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z et al (2007) Agriculture. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Niggli U, Fließbach A, Hepperly P et al (2009) Low greenhouse gas agriculture: mitigation and adaptation potential of sustainable farming systems. Ökologie Landbau 141:32–33Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Griggs DJ, Noguer M (2002) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of working group i to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Weather 57:267–269Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paustian K, Babcock B, Hatfield J et al (2004) Agricultural mitigation of greenhouse gases: science and policy options. CAST (Council on Agricultural Science and Technology) Report R 141: 2004Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu H, Jiang G, Zhuang H et al (2008) Distribution, utilization structure and potential of biomass resources in rural China: With special references of crop residues. Renew Sust Energ Rev 12:1402–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Limmeechokchai B, Chawana S (2007) Sustainable energy development strategies in the rural Thailand: The case of the improved cooking stove and the small biogas digester. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 11:818–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zeng X, Ma Y, Ma L (2007) Utilization of straw in biomass energy in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 11:976–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zheng Y, Li Z, Feng S et al (2010) Biomass energy utilization in rural areas may contribute to alleviating energy crisis and global warming: a case study in a typical agro-village of Shandong, China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14:3132–3139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edmeades DC (2003) The long-term effects of manures and fertilizers on soil productivity and quality: a review. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 66:165–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blanco-Canqui H, Lal R (2007) Soil structure and organic carbon relationships following 10 years of wheat straw management in no-till. Soil Tillage Res 95:240–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schofield R, Taylor AW (1955) The measurement of soil pH. Soil Sci Soc Am J 19:164–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bremner JM, Mulvaney CS (1982) Nitrogen-total. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2: chemical and microbial properties, Agronomy Monograph 9. Agronomy Society of America, Madison, pp 595–624Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Culley JLB (1993) Density and compressibility. In: Carter MR (ed) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 529–539Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Change IPOC, Eggelstons S, Buendia L et al (2006) IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, JapanGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sommer SG, Olesen JE, Petersen SO et al (2009) Region-specific assessment of greenhouse gas mitigation with different manure management strategies in four agroecological zones. Global Change Biol 15:2825–2837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bhattacharya S, Abdul Salam P, Runqing H et al (2005) An assessment of the potential for non-plantation biomass resources in selected Asian countries for 2010. Biomass Bioenergy 29:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA (2012) Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485:229–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leifeld J, Angers DA, Chenu C et al (2013) Organic farming gives no climate change benefit through soil carbon sequestration. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:E984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gattinger A, Muller A, Haeni M et al (2013) Reply to Leifeld et al.: Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming is not equated with climate change mitigation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:E985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    MacKenzie SH, Field CB, Raupach MR (2004) The global carbon cycle: integrating humans, climate, and the natural world. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hocking MB (2006) Handbook of chemical technology and pollution control. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alvarez R (2005) A review of nitrogen fertilizer and conservation tillage effects on soil organic carbon storage. Soil Use Manag 21:38–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schlesinger WH (1999) Carbon sequestration in soils. Science 284:2095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Robertson GP (2004) Abatement of nitrous oxide, methane, and the other non-CO2 greenhouse gases: the need for a systems approach. In: Field CB, Raupach MR (eds) The global carbon cycle: integrating humans, climate and the natural world. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp 493–506Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gregorich E, Rochette P, VandenBygaart A et al (2005) Greenhouse gas contributions of agricultural soils and potential mitigation practices in Eastern Canada. Soil Tillage Res 83:53–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T et al (2006) Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. FAO, Rome, pp 101–104Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bemis G, Allen J (2005) Inventory of California greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990 to 2002 update. In: California Energy Commission (ed) Proceedings of the Climate Change Advisory Committee Meeting and IEPR Committee Workshop on Global Climate Change in CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cederberg C, Henriksson M, Berglund M (2013) An LCA researcher’s wish list—data and emission models needed to improve LCA studies of animal production. Animal 7:212–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haitao Liu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jing Li
    • 1
  • Xiao Li
    • 1
  • Yanhai Zheng
    • 1
  • Sufei Feng
    • 3
  • Gaoming Jiang
    • 1
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of BotanyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.University of the Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.State Key Laboratory of Crop Biology, College of AgronomyShandong Agricultural UniversityTai’anChina

Personalised recommendations