Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems

, Volume 60, Issue 1–3, pp 237–252

Enhancing the carbon sink in European agricultural soils: including trace gas fluxes in estimates of carbon mitigation potential

  • Pete Smith
  • Keith W. Goulding
  • Keith A. Smith
  • David S. Powlson
  • Jo U. Smith
  • Pete Falloon
  • Kevin Coleman
Article

Abstract

The possibility that the carbon sink in agricultural soils can be enhanced has taken on great political significance since the Kyoto Protocol was finalised in December 1997. The Kyoto Protocol allows carbon emissions to be offset by demonstrable removal of carbon from the atmosphere. Thus, forestry activities (Article 3.3) and changes in the use of agricultural soils (Article 3.4) that are shown to reduce atmospheric CO2levels may be included in the Kyoto emission reduction targets. The European Union is committed to a reduction in CO2 emissions to 92% of baseline (1990) levels during the first commitment period (2008–2012). We have shown recently that there are a number of agricultural land-management changes that show some potential to increase the carbon sink in agricultural soils and others that allow alternative forms of carbon mitigation (i.e. through fossil fuel substitution), but the options differ greatly in their potential for carbon mitigation. The changes examined were, (a) switching all animal manure use to arable land, (b) applying all sewage sludge to arable land, (c) incorporating all surplus cereal straw, (d) conversion to no-till agriculture, (e) use of surplus arable land to de-intensify 1/3 of current intensive crop production (through use of 1/3 grass/arable rotations), (f) use of surplus arable land to allow natural woodland regeneration, and (g) use of surplus arable land for bioenergy crop production. In this paper, we attempt for the first time to assess other (non-CO2) effects of these land-management changes on (a) the emission of the other important agricultural greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide, and (b) other aspects of the ecology of the agroecosystems. We find that the relative importance of trace gas fluxes varies enormously among the scenarios. In some such as the sewage sludge, woodland regeneration and bioenergy production scenarios, the inclusion of trace gases makes only a small (<10%) difference to the CO2-C mitigation potential. In other cases, for example the no-till, animal manure and agricultural de-intensification scenarios, trace gases have a large impact, sometimes halving or more than doubling the CO2-C mitigation potential. The scenarios showing the greatest increase when including trace gases are those in which manure management changes significantly. In the one scenario (no-till) where the carbon mitigation potential was reduced greatly, a small increase in methane oxidation was outweighed by a sharp increase in N2O emissions. When these land-management options are combined to examine the whole agricultural land area of Europe, most of the changes in mitigation potential are small, but depending upon assumptions for the animal manure scenario, the total mitigation potential either increases by about 20% or decreases by about 10%, shifting the mitigation potential of the scenario from just above the EU's 8% Kyoto emission reduction target (98.9 Tg C y−1) to just below it. Our results suggest that (a) trace gas fluxes may change the mitigation potential of a land management option significantly and should always be considered alongside CO2-C mitigation potentials and (b) agricultural management options show considerable potential for carbon mitigation even after accounting for trace gas fluxes.

agriculture carbon mitigation climate change Europe Kyoto Protocol Article 3.4 land management methane nitrous oxide soil organic carbon trace gas emissions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Addiscott TM & Dexter AR (1994) Tillage and crop residue management effects on losses of chemicals from soils. Soil Tillage Research 30: 125–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arah JRM, Smith KA, Crichton IJ & Li HS (1991) Nitrous oxide production and denitrification in Scottish arable soils. J Soil Sci 42: 351–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arden-Clarke C & Hodges RD (1988) The environmental effects of conventional and organic/biological farming systems. II. Soil ecology, soil fertility and nutrient cycles. Biol Agric Hort 5: 223–287Google Scholar
  4. Ball BC, Scott A & Parker JP (1999) Field N2O, CO2 and CH4 fluxes in relation to tillage, compaction and soil quality in Scotland. Soil Tillage Res (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Bøckman OC & Olfs HW (1998) Fertilizers, agronomy and N2O. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 52: 165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouwman AF (1996) Direct emission of nitrous oxide from agricultural soils. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 46: 53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown L, Armstrong-Brown S, Jarvis SC, Syed B, Goulding KTW, Philips VR & Sneath RW (2000) An inventory of nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture in the UK using the IPCC methodology: emission estimate, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Atmospher Environ (submitted)Google Scholar
  8. Butterbach-Bahl K, Gasche R, Breuer L & Papen H (1997) Fluxes of NO and N2O from temperate forest soils: impact of forest type, N deposition and of liming on the NO and N2O emissions. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 48: 79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clayton H, McTaggart IP, Parker J, Swan L & Smith KA (1997) Nitrous oxide emissions from fertilized grassland: A 2–year study of the effects of N fertiliser form and environmental conditions. Biol Fert Soils 25: 252–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corré W & Oenema O (1998) Methane from animals and animal wastes. In: Friebauer A & Kaltschmitt M (eds) Biogenic emissions of greenhouse gases caused by arable and animal agriculture - measurement technologies and emission factors, pp 86–93. IER, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  11. Fraters D, Bouwmann AF & Thewessen TJM (1993) Soil organic matter map of Europe. Estimates of soil organic matter content of the topsoil of FAO-Unesco soil units. RIVM Report No 481505004, Bilthoven, Netherlands, 60 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Frye WW (1984) Energy requirement in no-tillage. In: Phillips RE & Phillips SH (eds) No-Tillage Agriculture. Principles and Practices, pp 127–151. New York: Van Nostrand ReinholdGoogle Scholar
  13. Goulding KWT, Bailey NJ, Bradbury NJ, Hargreaves P, Howe M, Murphy DV, Poulton PR & Willison TW (1998) Nitrogen deposition and its contribution to nitrogen cycling and associated soil processes. New Phytol 139: 49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harper SHT & Lynch JM (1981) The kinetics of straw decomposition in relation to its potential to produce the phytotoxin acetic acid. J Soil Sci 32: 627–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (1996) The Revised 1996 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volumes 1, 2 and 3. IPCC, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  16. Jarvis SC, Lovell RD & Panayides R (1995) Patterns of methane emission from excreta pf grazing animals. Soil Biol Biochem 27: 1581–1588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jenkyn JF, Gutteridge RJ & Todd AD (1995) Effects of incorporating straw, using different cultivation systems, and of burning it, on diseases of winter barley. J Agricul Sci Cambridge 124: 195–204Google Scholar
  18. Kaiser E-A, Kohrs K, Kücke M, Schnug E, Heinemeyer O & Munch JC (1998) Nitrous oxide release from arable soil: importance of N-fertilization, crops and temporal variation. Soil Biol Biochem 30: 1553–1563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kern JS & Johnson MG (1993) Conservation tillage impacts on national soil and atmospheric carbon levels. Soil Sci Soc Amer J 57: 200–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kroeze C (1998) N2O from animal waste. In: Freibauer A & Kaltschmitt M (eds) Biogenic emissions of greenhouse gases caused by arable and animal agriculture - measurement technologies and emission factors, pp 119–128. IER, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
  21. Lal R, Kimble JM, Follet RF & Cole CV (1998) The potential of U.S. cropland to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press, 128 ppGoogle Scholar
  22. Macdonald AJ, Poulton PR, Powlson DS & Jenkinson DS (1997) Effects of season, soil type and cropping on recoveries, residues and losses of 15N-labelled fertilizer applied to arable crops in spring. J Agricul Sci, Cambridge 129: 125–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacKenzie AF, Fan MX & Cadrin F (1998) Nitrous oxide emission in three years as affected by tillage, corn-soybean-alfalfa rotations, and nitrogen fertilization. J Environ Qual 27: 698–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MAFF (1983) Pigs: the outdoor breeding herd. Booklet 2431. London, HMSO: 24 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. MAFF (1994) Fertilizer recommendations for agricultural and horticultural crops. RB209, 6th edition, London, HMSO: 112 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. Marland G, Andres RJ & Boden TA (1994) Global, regional, and national CO2 emissions. In: Boden TA, Kaiser DP, Sepanski RJ & Stoss FW (eds) Trends’ 93: A Compendium of Data on Global Change, pp 505–584. ORNL/CDIAC-65. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Mosier A, Kroeze C, Nevison C, Oenema O, Seitzinger S & van Cleemput O. (1998) Closing the global N2O budget: nitrous oxide emissions through the agricultural nitrogen cycle: OECD/IPCC/IEA phase II development of IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventory methodology. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 52: 225–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Narbuurs GJ, Dolman AJ, Verkaik E, Whitmore AP, Daamen WP, Oenema O, Kabat P & Mohren GMJ (1999) Resolving issues on terrestrial biospheric sinks in the Kyoto Protocol. Dutch National Programme on Global Air Pollution and Climate Change. Report no. 410 200 030 (1999), 100 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. Oenema O, Velthof GL, Yamulki S & Jarvis SC (1997) Nitrous oxide emissions from grazed grasslands. Soil Use Manage 13: 288–295Google Scholar
  30. Oenema O, Gerbauer G, Rodriguez M, Sapek A, Jarvis SC, Corré WJ & Yamulki S (1998) Controlling nitrous oxide emissions from grassland livestock production systems. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 52: 141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paustian K, Andrén O, Janzen HH, Lal R, Smith P, Tian G, Tiessen H, van Noordwijk M & Woomer PL (1997) Agricultural soils as a sink to mitigate CO2 emissions. Soil Use Manag 13: 229–244Google Scholar
  32. Poulton PR (1996) The Park Grass Experiment, 1856–1995. In: Powlson DS, Smith P & Smith JU (eds) Evaluation of soil organic matter models using existing, long-term datasets, pp 376–384. NATO ASI I38, Heidelberg, Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  33. Powlson DS, Jenkinson DS, Pruden G & Johnston AE (1985) The effect of straw incorporation on the uptake of nitrogen by winter wheat. J Sci Food Agric 36: 26–30Google Scholar
  34. Powlson DS, Smith P, Coleman K, Smith JU, Glendining MJ, Körschens M & Franko U (1998) A European network of long-term sites for studies on soil organic matter. Soil Tillage Research 47: 263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prew RD, Ashby JE, Bacon ETG, Christian, DG, Gutteridge RJ, Jenkyn JF, Powell W & Todd AD (1995) Effects of incorporating or burning straw, and of different cultivation systems, on winter wheat grown on two soil types, 1985–91. J Agricul Sci, Cambridge 124: 173–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Priemé A, Christensen S, Dobbie KE & Smith KA (1997) Slow increase in rate of methane oxidation in soils with time following land use change from arable agriculture to woodland. Soil Biol Biochem 29: 1269–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reeburgh WS, Whalen SC & Alpern MJ (1993) The role of methylotrophy in the global methane budget. In: Murrell JC & Kelly DP (eds) Microbial growth on C1 compounds, pp 1–14. Andover, UK: Intercept PressGoogle Scholar
  38. Sampson RN, Wright LN, Winjum JK, Kinsman JD, Benneman J, Kürsten E & Scurlock JMO (1993) Biomass management and energy. Water Air Soil Poll 70: 139–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schlesinger WH (1999) Carbon sequestration in soils. Science 284: 2095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scott A, Ball BC, Crichton IJ & Aitken MN (1998) Nitrous oxide emissions from grassland amended with sewage sludge. Soil Use Manage 14: 55Google Scholar
  41. Skiba UM, Sheppard LJ, MacDonald J & Fowler D (1998) Some key environmental variables controlling nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural and semi-natural soils in Scotland. Atmospher Environ 32: 3311–3320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, KA, McTaggart IP & Tsuruta H (1997) Emissions of N2O and NO associated with nitrogen fertilization in intensive agriculture, and the potential for mitigation. Soil Use Manage 13: 296–304Google Scholar
  43. Smith KA, McTaggart IP, Dobbie KE & Conen F (1998) Emissions of N2O from Scottish agricultural soils, as a function of fertilizer N Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 52: 123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith P & Powlson DS (2000) Considering manure and carbon sequestration. Science 287: 428–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith P, Powlson DS, Glendining MJ & Smith JU (1997a) Potential for carbon sequestration in European soils: preliminary estimates for five scenarios using results from long-term experiments. Global Change Biol 3: 67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith P, Powlson DS, Glendining MJ & Smith JU (1997b) Opportunities and limitations for C sequestration in European agricultural soils through changes in management. In: Lal R, Kimble JM, Follett RF & Stewart BA (eds) Management carbon sequestration in soil, pp 143–152, Advances in Soil Science. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA.Google Scholar
  47. Smith P, Powlson DS, Glendining MJ & Smith, JU (1998) Preliminary estimates of the potential for carbon mitigation in European soils through no-till farming. Global Change Biol 4: 679–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith P, Powlson DS, Smith JU, Falloon P & Coleman K (2000a) Meeting Europe's climate change commitments: Quantitative estimates of the potential for carbon mitigation by agriculture. Global Change Biol. 6: 525–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith P, Powlson DS, Smith JU, Falloon P & Coleman K (2000b) Meeting the UK's climate change commitments: Options for carbon mitigation on agricultural land. Soil Use Manage 16: 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tiedje JM, Sexstone AJ, Parkin TB, Revsbech NP & Shelton DR (1984) Anaerobic processes in soil. Plant Soil 76: 197–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. UNSC/ECE (United Nations Statistical Commission/Economic Commission for Europe) (1987) Environment Statistics in Europe and North America. An Experimental Compendium. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Webber MD, Duvoort-van Engers LE & Berglund S (1986) Future developments in sludge disposal strategies. In: Davis RD, Haeni H & L'Hermite P (eds) Factors influencing sludge utilisation practices in Europe, pp 103–116. London: Elsevier Applied Science PublishersGoogle Scholar
  53. Williams JH (1988) Guidelines, Recommendation, Rules and Regulations for Spreading Manures, Slurries and Sludges on Arable and Grassland. Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 65 ppGoogle Scholar
  54. Zechmeister-Boltenstern S (1998) Forest soils - source or sink for atmospheric trace gases. In: Freibauer A & Kaltschmitt M (eds) Biogenic emissions of greenhouse gases caused by arable and animal agriculture - measurement technologies and emission factors, pp 94–104. IER, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, GermanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pete Smith
    • 1
  • Keith W. Goulding
    • 2
  • Keith A. Smith
    • 3
  • David S. Powlson
    • 2
  • Jo U. Smith
    • 2
  • Pete Falloon
    • 2
  • Kevin Coleman
    • 2
  1. 1.Soil Science DepartmentIACR-Rothamsted, HarpendenHertsUK
  2. 2.Soil Science DepartmentIACR-Rothamsted, HarpendenHertsUK
  3. 3.Institute of Ecology and Resource ManagementUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations