Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 92, Issue 2, pp 335–348 | Cite as

Soil greenhouse gas emissions from agroforestry and other land uses under different moisture regimes in lower Missouri River Floodplain soils: a laboratory approach

  • B. D. Moore
  • G. Kaur
  • P. P. MotavalliEmail author
  • B. A. Zurweller
  • B. M. Svoma


Changes in land use management practices may have multiple effects on microclimate and soil properties that affect soil greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Soil surface GHG emissions need to be better quantified in order to assess the total environmental costs of current and possible alternative land uses in the Missouri River Floodplain (MRF). The objective of this study was to evaluate soil GHG emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O) in MRF soils under long-term agroforestry (AF), row-crop agriculture (AG) and riparian forest (FOR) systems in response to differences in soil water content, land use, and N fertilizer inputs. Intact soil cores were obtained from all three land use systems and incubated under constant temperature conditions for a period of 94 days using randomized complete block design with three replications. Cores were subjected to three different water regimes: flooded (FLD), optimal for CO2 efflux (OPT), and fluctuating. Additional N fertilizer treatments for the AG and AF land uses were included during the incubation and designated as AG-N and AF-N, respectively. Soil CO2 and N2O emissions were affected by the land use systems and soil moisture regimes. The AF land use resulted in significantly lower cumulative soil CO2 and N2O emissions than FOR soils under the OPT water regime. Nitrogen application to AG and AF did not increase cumulative soil CO2 emissions. FLD resulted in the highest soil N2O and CH4 emissions, but did not cause any increases in soil cumulative CO2 emissions compared to OPT water regime conditions. Cumulative soil CO2 and N2O emissions were positively correlated with soil pH. Soil cumulative soil CH4 emissions were only affected by water regimes and strongly correlated with soil redox potential.


Row crop production Riparian forest Redox potential Pecan orchard 


  1. Albrecht A, Kandji ST (2003) Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 99:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allaire SE, Roulier S, Cessna AJ (2009) Quantifying preferential flow in soils: a review of different techniques. J Hydrol 378:179–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aulakh MS, Doran JW, Walters DT, Power JF (1991) Legume residue and soil water effects on denitrification in soils of different textures. Soil Biol Biochem 23:1161–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey NJ (2005) Soil CO2 and N2O emissions from an agricultural watershed as influenced by landscape position and agroforestry conservation management practices. MS Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandyopadhyay KK, Lal R (2014) Effect of land use management on greenhouse gas emissions from water stable aggregates. Geoderma 232:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bass A, O’Grady D, Leblanc M, Tweed S, Nelson P, Bird M (2014) Carbon dioxide and methane emissions from a wet-dry tropical floodplain in Northern Australia. Wetlands 34:619–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CAFNR. (2008) Horticulture & Agroforestry Research Center introduction. Verified 6 Jul 2010. University of Missouri, Columbia
  8. Cambardella CA, Elliott ET (1992) Particulate soil organic-matter changes across a grassland cultivation sequence. Soil Sci Soc Am J 56:777–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Center for Applied Research and Environmental Systems (2011) CARES: Missouri Interactive Maps. Verified 20 Nov 2011. College of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources, Columbia
  10. Chan A, Parkin T (2001a) Effect of land use on methane flux from soil. J Environ Qual 30:786–797CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chan ASK, Parkin TB (2001b) Methane oxidation and production activity in soils from natural and agricultural ecosystems. J Environ Qual 30:1896–1903CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cole V, Cerri C, Minami K, Mosier A, Rosenberg N, Sauerbeck D et al (1996) Agricultural options for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. In: Watson RT, Zinyowera MC, Moss RH (eds) Climate Change 1995. Impacts, adaptations and mitigation of climate change: scientific-technical analyses, pp 745–771. Published for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. D’Amore DV, Stewart SR, Huddleston JH (2004) Saturation, reduction, and the formation of iron–manganese concretions in the Jackson-Frazier wetland, Oregon. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:1012–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dohrenwend J, Gelwicks GT, Havel JE, Helmers DL, Hooker JB, Jones JR, Knowlton MF, Kubisiak J, Mazourek J, McColpin AC (1998) Flooding to restore connectivity of regulated, large-river wetlands. BioScience 48:1–9Google Scholar
  15. Dube F, Thevathasan NV, Zagal E, Gordon AM, Stolpe NB, Espinosa M (2011) Carbon sequestration potential of silvopastoral and other land use systems in the Chilean Patagonia. In: Kumar BM, Nair PKR (eds) Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 101–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher K, Jacinthe P, Vidon P, Liu X, Baker M (2014) Nitrous oxide emission from cropland and adjacent riparian buffers in contrasting hydrogeomorphic settings. J Environ Qual 43:338–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Flechard C, Ambus P, Skiba U, Rees R, Hensen A, Van Amstel A, Van Den Pol-Van Dasselaar A, Soussana JF, Jones M, Clifton-Brown J (2007) Effects of climate and management intensity on nitrous oxide emissions in grassland systems across Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 121:135–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flynn HC, Keller E, King H, Sim S, Hastings A, Wang S, Smith P (2012) Quantifying global greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change for crop production. Glob Change Biol 18:1622–1635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franzluebbers AJ, Follett RF (2005) Greenhouse gas contributions and mitigation potential in agricultural regions of North America: introduction. Soil Tillage Res 83:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilmour C, Broadbent F, Beck S (1977) Recycling of carbon and nitrogen through land disposal of various wastes. In: Eliott LF, Stevenson FJ (eds) Soils for management of organic wastes and waste waters. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, pp 171–194Google Scholar
  21. Grogger HE, Landtiser GR, Scrivner CE, Springer ME, Fenwick RW, Carter GC (1978) Soil Survey of Howard County, Missouri. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Heisner FE (1997) Soil genesis and sediment character of recent Missouri River flood deposits. MS Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoben J, Gehl R, Millar N, Grace P, Robertson G (2011) Nonlinear nitrous oxide (N2O) response to nitrogen fertilizer in on-farm corn crops of the US Midwest. Glob Change Biol 17:1140–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001) Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  25. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Climate Change 2007: synthesis report. In: Pachauri RK, Reisinger A (eds) Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, p 104.
  26. Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst 76:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaur G, Zurweller BA, Nelson KA, Motavalli PP, Dudenhoeffer CJ (2017) Soil waterlogging and nitrogen fertilizer management effects on corn and soybean yields. Agron J 109:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kirk G (2004) The biogeochemistry of submerged soils. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koh HS, Ochs CA, Yu K (2009) Hydrologic gradient and vegetation controls on CH4 and CO2 fluxes in a spring-fed forested wetland. Hydrobiologia 630:271–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lang M, Cai Z, Chang SX (2011) Effects of land use type and incubation temperature on greenhouse gas emissions from Chinese and Canadian soils. J Soil Sediments 11:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Laville P, Lehuger S, Loubet B, Chaumartin F, Cellier P (2011) Effect of management, climate and soil conditions on N2O and NO emissions from an arable crop rotation using high temporal resolution measurements. Agric For Meteorol 151:228–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Linn D, Doran J (1984) Effect of water-filled pore space on carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide production in tilled and nontilled soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 48:1267–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mander Ü, Maddison M, Soosaar K, Teemusk A, Kanal A, Uri V, Truu J (2015) The impact of a pulsing groundwater table on greenhouse gas emissions in riparian grey alder stands. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:2360–2371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mansfeldt T (2003) In situ long-term redox potential measurements in a dyked marsh soil. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 166:210–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McNicol G, Silver WL (2014) Separate effects of flooding and anaerobiosis on soil greenhouse gas emissions and redox sensitive biogeochemistry. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 119:557–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mitsch W, Gosselink J (2000) Wetlands, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Monteny GJ, Bannink A, Chadwick D (2006) Greenhouse gas abatement strategies for animal husbandry. Agric Ecosyst Environ 112:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moore B (2012) Land use effects on greenhouse gas production in lower Missouri River floodplain soils. M.S. Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  39. Munger JW, Loescher HW (2006) Guidelines for making eddy covariance flux measurements. Verified 23 Feb 2012. Oak Ridge National Laboratory
  40. Mutuo PK, Cadisch G, Albrecht A, Palm C, Verchot L (2005) Potential of agroforestry for carbon sequestration and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from soils in the tropics. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 71:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nair PR, Nair VD, Kumar BM, Showalter JM (2010) Chapter five—carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Adv Agron 108:237–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nathan M, Stecker J, Sun Y (2006) Soil testing in Missouri: a guide for conducting soil tests in Missouri. University of Missouri. Columbia, Missouri. Accessed 26 Sept 2013)
  43. National Weather Service (2012) Columbia, MO climatology and weather records. Verified 7 Mar 2012
  44. Natural Resources Conservation Service (2005) 13563—Nodaway silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded. NRCS, Washington, DC. Verified 31 Aug 2015
  45. Natural Research Council and Committee on Missouri River Ecosystem (2002) The Missouri River ecosystem: exploring the prospects for recovery. National Academy Press, District of ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  46. Pal D, Broadbent F (1975) Influence of moisture on rice straw decomposition in soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 39:59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Palm C, Alegr J, Arevalo L, Mutuo P, Mosier A, Coe R (2002) Nitrous oxide and methane fluxes in six different land use systems in the Peruvian Amazon. Global Biogeochem Cycl 16:21–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parkin TB, Mosier AR, Smith J, Veneterea R (2003) USDA-ARS GRACEnet chamber-based trace gas flux measurement protocol. USDA-ARS (Ed.), AmesGoogle Scholar
  49. Pathak H, Nedwell D (2001) Nitrous oxide emission from soil with different fertilizers, water levels and nitrification inhibitors. Water Air Soil Pollut 129:217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Peichl M, Thevathesan NV, Gordon AM, Huss J, Abohassan RA (2006) Carbon sequestration potentials in temperate tree-based intercropping systems, southern Ontario, Canada. Agrofor Syst 66:243–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rochette P, Eriksen-Hamel NS (2008) Chamber measurements of soil nitrous oxide flux: are absolute values reliable? Soil Sci Soc Am J 72:331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. SAS Institute (2009) SAS User’s Guide version 9.2. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  53. Schaufler G, Kitzler B, Schindlbacher A, Skiba U, Sutton M, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from European soils under different land use: effects of soil moisture and temperature. Eur J Soil Sci 61:683–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schoeneberger M, Bentrup G, de Gooijer H, Soolanayakanahally R, Sauer T, Brandle J, Zhou X, Current D (2012) Branching out: agroforestry as a climate change mitigation and adaptation tool for agriculture. J Soil Water Conserv 67:128A–136ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Seifert J (1960) The influence of moisture and temperature on the number of microorganisms in the soil. Folia Microbiol 5:176–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith K, Conen F (2004) Impacts of land management on fluxes of trace greenhouse gases. Soil Use Manag 20:255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sonne E (2006) Greenhouse gas emissions from forestry operations. J Environ Qual 35:1439–1450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Soto-Pinto L, Anzueto M, Mendoza J, Ferrer GJ, de Jong B (2010) Carbon sequestration through agroforestry in indigenous communities of Chiapas, Mexico. Agrofor Syst 78:39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sparks DL, Page AL, Helmke PA, Loeppert RH, Soltanpour PN, Tabatabai MA, Johnston CT, Sumner ME (1996) Methods of soil analysis. Part 3—chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  60. Spink A, Sparks RE, Van Oorschot M, Verhoeven JT (1998) Nutrient dynamics of large river floodplains. Regul River 14:203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sumner ME (2000) Handbook of soil science. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  62. Sun QQ, Shi K, Damerell P, Whitham C, Yu GH, Zou CL (2013) Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes: seasonal dynamics from inland riparian ecosystems, northeast China. Sci Tot Environ 465:48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. US EPA (2007) Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, District of ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  64. U. S. Global Change Research Program (2009) Global climate change impacts in the United States: a state of knowledge report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Unger IM, Kennedy AC, Muzika RM (2009a) Flooding effects on soil microbial communities. Appl Soil Ecol 42:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Unger IM, Motavalli PP, Muzika RM (2009b) Changes in soil chemical properties with flooding: a field laboratory approach. Agric Ecosyst Environ 131:105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. USEPA (2012) Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
  68. Van den Heuvel R, Bakker S, Jetten M, Hefting M (2011) Decreased N2O reduction by low soil pH causes high N2O emissions in a riparian ecosystem. Geobiology 9:294–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Van der Weerden T, Sherlock R, Williams P, Cameron K (1999) Nitrous oxide emissions and methane oxidation by soil following cultivation of two different leguminous pastures. Biol Fertil Soils 30:52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weil RR, Islam KR, Stine MA, Gruver JB, Samson-Liebig SE (2003) Estimating active carbon for soil quality assessment: a simplified method for laboratory and field use. Am J Altern Agric 18:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. West TO, Post WM (2002) Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation: a global data analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:1930–1946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yu KW, Wang ZP, Chen GX (1997) Nitrous oxide and methane transport through rice plants. Biol Fertil Soils 24:341–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. D. Moore
    • 1
  • G. Kaur
    • 2
  • P. P. Motavalli
    • 3
    Email author
  • B. A. Zurweller
    • 4
  • B. M. Svoma
    • 3
  1. 1.Soil Survey OfficeU.S. Department of AgricultureDillonUSA
  2. 2.Delta Research and Extension CenterMississippi State UniversityStonevilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Soil, Environmental and Atmospheric SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  4. 4.Agronomy DepartmentUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations