Soil carbon management in developing country agricultural ... · Soil carbon management in...
Transcript of Soil carbon management in developing country agricultural ... · Soil carbon management in...
Soil carbon management in developing country agricultural
systems
Soil carbon management in developing country agricultural
systems
Technical Working Group on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (T-AGG): Experts Meeting, April 22 & 23, 2010 · Chicago, Illinois
Technical Working Group on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (T-AGG): Experts Meeting, April 22 & 23, 2010 · Chicago, Illinois
Theodor FriedrichSenior Officer AGP
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nat ions
Theodor FriedrichSenior Officer AGP
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nat ions
outline
• Agriculture as driver
• Global potentials
• Mitigation strategies
• Agriculture as driver
• Global potentials
• Mitigation strategies• Mitigation strategies
• Mitigation potential
• Conclusions
• Mitigation strategies
• Mitigation potential
• Conclusions
agriculture as a driver
Greenhouse gas emissions:
• Carbon Dioxide is the most important GHG • Other GHG (Methane, Nitrous Oxide) more powerful• Still 77% of total GHG in CO 2 equivalent is due to CO 2
Greenhouse gas emissions:
• Carbon Dioxide is the most important GHG • Other GHG (Methane, Nitrous Oxide) more powerful• Still 77% of total GHG in CO 2 equivalent is due to CO 2• Still 77% of total GHG in CO 2 equivalent is due to CO 2
• Agricultural land use contributes 32% of all GHG:• The major largest components are:
• Land use change: 18.3%• Nitrogen emissions from soils: 6%• Methane from livestock: 5%
• Still 77% of total GHG in CO 2 equivalent is due to CO 2
• Agricultural land use contributes 32% of all GHG:• The major largest components are:
• Land use change: 18.3%• Nitrogen emissions from soils: 6%• Methane from livestock: 5%
global potentials
Agriculture mitigating climate change
• Globally 5 bill ha (5 .109) under agriculturei.e. managed by mankind (= 40% of total land)
Agriculture mitigating climate change
• Globally 5 bill ha (5 .109) under agriculturei.e. managed by mankind (= 40% of total land)i.e. managed by mankind (= 40% of total land)
• of this 1.4 bill ha are cropland• Significant impact on climate change
i.e. managed by mankind (= 40% of total land)• of this 1.4 bill ha are cropland• Significant impact on climate change
global potentials
Agriculture mitigating climate change
• Global pool of Soil Organic Carbon 1,500 Pg(1 Pg = 1 bill. metric tons = 1 Gt)
• Agriculture has released 456 Pg C from SOCwhich builds the potential for soil as C -sink
Agriculture mitigating climate change
• Global pool of Soil Organic Carbon 1,500 Pg(1 Pg = 1 bill. metric tons = 1 Gt)
• Agriculture has released 456 Pg C from SOCwhich builds the potential for soil as C -sink which builds the potential for soil as C -sink
• Potential C -capturing from cropland:0.75 – 1.0 bill t (Pg)/year
• Total potential for increasing the terrestrialC pool is about 3 Pg/year = about the annualincrease in global CO 2 concentration
• Additionally emission reductions possible
which builds the potential for soil as C -sink • Potential C -capturing from cropland:0.75 – 1.0 bill t (Pg)/year
• Total potential for increasing the terrestrialC pool is about 3 Pg/year = about the annualincrease in global CO 2 concentration
• Additionally emission reductions possible
mitigation strategies
Agricultural (crop) mitigation strategies:• Sequestration:Maximize soil as carbon sink
• reduce soil carbon emissions• maximise biomass production• enhance soil carbon input
Agricultural (crop) mitigation strategies:• Sequestration:Maximize soil as carbon sink
• reduce soil carbon emissions• maximise biomass production• enhance soil carbon input
• Emission reduction:• Rice – methane• Fertilizer – nitrous oxide• Fuel emissions• Emissions from input manufacturing• Manure handling• Bio energy?
• Emission reduction:• Rice – methane• Fertilizer – nitrous oxide• Fuel emissions• Emissions from input manufacturing• Manure handling• Bio energy?
Sequestration:Carbon Offset Consultation,West Lafayette, October 2008:• CA base for carbon credit protocols
Sequestration:Carbon Offset Consultation,West Lafayette, October 2008:• CA base for carbon credit protocols
mitigation strategies
• CA base for carbon credit protocols• CA for CC mitigation and adaptation• CA technologies for Climate Change
adaptation and mitigation available
• CA base for carbon credit protocols• CA for CC mitigation and adaptation• CA technologies for Climate Change
adaptation and mitigation available
The simultaneous combination of
• Continuous zero tillage• Permanent soil cover• Crop rotations
has become known as
The simultaneous combination of
• Continuous zero tillage• Permanent soil cover• Crop rotations
has become known as
mitigation strategies
has become known asConservation Agriculturehas become known asConservation Agriculture
Conservation Agriculture Conservation Agriculture
Action of Soil Biota
Structure/Porosity
Action of Soil Biota
Structure/Porosity
Con
vent
iona
l Agr
icul
ture
Con
vent
iona
l Agr
icul
ture
High SoilOrganicMatter
High SoilOrganicMatter
Soil Organic Matter = Drought ResistanceSoil Organic Matter = Drought Resistance
mitigation strategies
Mechanical Tillage
Biological Tillage
Con
vent
iona
l Agr
icul
ture
Con
vent
iona
l Agr
icul
ture
MatterMatterlow soilorganic matterlow soilorganic matter
22COCO
90
120
150
180
CE
R (
g C
O2
m-2
)
MP
Cumulative Carbon Dioxide Loss after 24 hoursCumulative Carbon Dioxide Loss after 24 hoursmitigation strategies
ReicoskyReicosky
y = 0.0792x + 9.7647R2 = 0.9698
0
30
60
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Cross Sectional Area (cm 2)
CE
R (
g C
O
SS
RMMK
NT L128
TILLAGE-INDUCED CO2 "FLUSH" AND CURRENT CROP RESIDU E19 days after tillage
249
129.5150
200
250
300T
OT
AL
C L
OS
T IN
19
DA
YS
(g
C/m
)2
185 g C/m from residueof previous wheat crop
2
mitigation strategies
ReicoskyReicosky
129.5106.6 99.8
49.9
MP
MP+DH2
DH CP NT
TILLAGE TYPE
0
50
100
150
TO
TA
L C
LO
ST
IN 1
9 D
AY
S (
g C
/m )
Nature’s Interdependent Tri-Cycles:Water, Carbon , Nitrogen ,
Nature’s Interdependent Tri-Cycles:Water, Carbon , Nitrogen ,
H2O C N
Tillage disrupts the natural cycles!
mitigation strategies
TillageLayerTillageLayer
ReicoskyReicosky
CA and climate change:• No single practice safely qualifies for
carbon credits (no -till, compost, organic)
• No-till a necessary, not sufficientcondition for Carbon Sequestration in
CA and climate change:• No single practice safely qualifies for
carbon credits (no -till, compost, organic)
• No-till a necessary, not sufficientcondition for Carbon Sequestration in
mitigation strategies
condition for Carbon Sequestration inmost climates
• Protocols for optimized systems to be established
• Attention to lifecycles and other GHG(compaction, irrigation)
condition for Carbon Sequestration inmost climates
• Protocols for optimized systems to be established
• Attention to lifecycles and other GHG(compaction, irrigation)
Emission reductions: Rice (CH 4)• CA-rice: no -till/no puddling• residue retention• no permanent flooding• evtl. permanent beds
Emission reductions: Rice (CH 4)• CA-rice: no -till/no puddling• residue retention• no permanent flooding• evtl. permanent beds
mitigation strategies
• evtl. permanent beds• SRI agronomy for
better root development
• evtl. permanent beds• SRI agronomy for
better root development
Emission reductions: N -Fertilizer• Use of legumes in rotation• Careful use of N fertilizer• Placement of N fertilizer (urea)• Irrigation (no flooding)
Emission reductions: N -Fertilizer• Use of legumes in rotation• Careful use of N fertilizer• Placement of N fertilizer (urea)• Irrigation (no flooding)
mitigation strategies
• Compaction: CTF• Compaction: CTF
Emission reductions:• Fuel emissions: - 40 to 70% • Emissions from input manufacturing:
biological processes replacing functions of– machinery: - 50% – fertilizer: - 30-50% – pesticides: - 20%
Emission reductions:• Fuel emissions: - 40 to 70% • Emissions from input manufacturing:
biological processes replacing functions of– machinery: - 50% – fertilizer: - 30-50% – pesticides: - 20%
mitigation strategies
– pesticides: - 20%
• Manure handling:– biogas– aerobic composting– application into cover crops/crop residues– knifing into soil (small quantities)
• No burning – avoidance of fire
– pesticides: - 20%
• Manure handling:– biogas– aerobic composting– application into cover crops/crop residues– knifing into soil (small quantities)
• No burning – avoidance of fire
Bio energy:• Bio energy = low efficiency solar energy • Carbon: either for bio energy or for
carbon sequestration • Carbon in soils has other beneficial
effects beyond carbon sequestration
Bio energy:• Bio energy = low efficiency solar energy • Carbon: either for bio energy or for
carbon sequestration • Carbon in soils has other beneficial
effects beyond carbon sequestration
mitigation strategies
effects beyond carbon sequestration• Diversion of carbon towards bio energy
reduces the speed of soil carbon build up
Biochar: • residues are a better C -source for soils
effects beyond carbon sequestration• Diversion of carbon towards bio energy
reduces the speed of soil carbon build up
Biochar: • residues are a better C -source for soils
Further options:• Integrated Crop -livestock -systemsFurther options:• Integrated Crop -livestock -systems
mitigation strategies
Soybean at harvest
with Italian ryegrass naturally established
12 years: soybean & italian ryegrass in succession
• Agroforestry:CA with trees (CAWT)
• Agroforestry:CA with trees (CAWT)
mitigation potentialmitigation potential
100100U
S S
oil C
onse
rvat
ion
Ser
vice
cons
erva
tion
tilla
ge
dust
bow
lS
iber
ia/U
SS
R
Fuk
uoka
(Ja
pan)
till/U
S
till d
emon
stra
tion
in B
razi
l
adop
tion
Bra
zil
plan
tio d
ireto
na
palh
a
expe
rimen
ts in
Chi
na, I
ndog
ange
tic P
lain
s
New
boo
st: C
anad
a, A
ustr
alia
, Kaz
akhs
tan,
Rus
sia,
Chi
na, F
inla
nd...
; Afr
ica
till i
n th
e U
S IITA
no-
till r
esea
rch
Mill
. ha
History and Adoption of CAHistory and Adoption of CA
DustbowlDustbowl
19301930 2000200019501950
US
Soi
l Con
serv
atio
n S
ervi
ceco
nser
vatio
n til
lage
Fau
lkne
r (U
S)
–F
ukuo
ka (
Japa
n)
com
mer
cial
no-
till/U
S
first
no-
till d
emon
stra
tion
in B
razi
l
Old
rieve
/Zim
babw
e
expe
rimen
ts in
Chi
na, I
ndog
ange
tic P
lain
s
New
boo
st: C
anad
a, A
ustr
alia
, Kaz
akhs
tan,
Rus
sia,
Chi
na, F
inla
nd...
; Afr
ica
Arg
entin
a, P
arag
uay;
19801980 19901990
Firs
t no-
till i
n th
e U
S
5050
19701970
Canada 13Canada 13Europe 0.5Europe 0.5
Asia 3.3Asia 3.3
Conservation Agriculture worldwide 111 Million ha Conservation Agriculture worldwide 111 Million ha
China 1.3China 1.3
continental, drycontinental, dry
temperate, moisttemperate, moist
continental, dry continental, dry
smallholdersmallholderaridarid
large scalelarge scale
large scalelarge scale
mitigation potentialmitigation potential
USA 27USA 27
Australia 17Australia 17
Africa 0.5Africa 0.5
Brazil 26Brazil 26
Argentina 20Argentina 20
Paraguay 2.4Paraguay 2.4tropical savannahtropical savannah
temperate, moisttemperate, moist
temperate, moisttemperate, moist
irrigatedirrigated
smallholdersmallholder
smallholdersmallholder
aridarid
aridaridlarge scalelarge scale large scalelarge scale
large scalelarge scale
large scalelarge scale
subtropical, dry
tropical savannahtropical savannah
Sequestration:Sequestration:mitigation potentialmitigation potential
S om e so il ca rbon seques tra tion ra tes
R eg ion R ate
M g ha -1 yr -1
Trop ica l(W est-C en tra l B R )
R angeM ean
0.04 – 0 .630.39
S ub trop ica l(S ou thern B R )
R angeM ean
0.04 -0.970.58
B razi l
S om e so il ca rbon seques tra tion ra tes
R eg ion R ate
M g ha -1 yr -1
Trop ica l(W est-C en tra l B R )
R angeM ean
0.04 – 0 .630.39
S ub trop ica l(S ou thern B R )
R angeM ean
0.04 -0.970.58
R eg ion R ate
M g ha -1 yr -1
Trop ica l(W est-C en tra l B R )
R angeM ean
0.04 – 0 .630.39
S ub trop ica l(S ou thern B R )
R angeM ean
0.04 -0.970.58
B razi l
(S ou thern B R ) M ean 0.58
Tem pera te(U S A)
R ange 0.1 -0.5
Trop ica l: C orazza et a l. (1999), S ilva e t a l. (2001), Le ite e t a l. (2001)S ub trop ica l: B ayer e t a l. (2000a,b ), Lova to (2001), Am ado et a l. (2001), F re ixo e t a l. (2002)Tem perate: Lal e t a l. (1999); W est & M arland (2002)G lobal: W est & P ost (2002)
M ean 0.34
G LO B A L M ean 0.57
B razi l
(S ou thern B R ) M ean 0.58
Tem pera te(U S A)
R ange 0.1 -0.5
Trop ica l: C orazza et a l. (1999), S ilva e t a l. (2001), Le ite e t a l. (2001)S ub trop ica l: B ayer e t a l. (2000a,b ), Lova to (2001), Am ado et a l. (2001), F re ixo e t a l. (2002)Tem perate: Lal e t a l. (1999); W est & M arland (2002)G lobal: W est & P ost (2002)
M ean 0.34
G LO B A L M ean 0.57
(S ou thern B R ) M ean 0.58
Tem pera te(U S A)
R ange 0.1 -0.5
Trop ica l: C orazza et a l. (1999), S ilva e t a l. (2001), Le ite e t a l. (2001)S ub trop ica l: B ayer e t a l. (2000a,b ), Lova to (2001), Am ado et a l. (2001), F re ixo e t a l. (2002)Tem perate: Lal e t a l. (1999); W est & M arland (2002)G lobal: W est & P ost (2002)
M ean 0.34
G LO B A L M ean 0.57
B razi l
Slide taken from Amado 2008, CACOC/CTIC-FAO
Sequestration:• Intensive grassland: 2 -7 Mg.ha-1.a-1
• New saturation:– cropland 30-50 years– grassland 15 -20 years
Sequestration:• Intensive grassland: 2 -7 Mg.ha-1.a-1
• New saturation:– cropland 30-50 years– grassland 15 -20 years
mitigation potentialmitigation potential
– grassland 15 -20 years
• Actual growth in CA: 6 mill ha/a, increasing
• outlook: in 20 years global CA adoption rate at 50%?
– grassland 15 -20 years
• Actual growth in CA: 6 mill ha/a, increasing
• outlook: in 20 years global CA adoption rate at 50%?
conclusionsconclusions
Conclusions:• Agricultural land management: big player inclimate change
• Agriculture is not an option: need toreduce environmental footprint
• CA responds to many global problemsand is expanding globally
Conclusions:• Agricultural land management: big player inclimate change
• Agriculture is not an option: need toreduce environmental footprint
• CA responds to many global problemsand is expanding globallyand is expanding globally
• Agriculture with CA could become a majorelement for global environmental policies
• CA is more profitable – payments not requiredto sustain it, but to accelerate adoption
• “Carbon” as new produce from farming• BUT: no quick fix; complementarymeasures needed – optimized protocols
and is expanding globally• Agriculture with CA could become a majorelement for global environmental policies
• CA is more profitable – payments not requiredto sustain it, but to accelerate adoption
• “Carbon” as new produce from farming• BUT: no quick fix; complementarymeasures needed – optimized protocols
Sustainability and Food for all:With CA agriculture can become
part of the solution!
Sustainability and Food for all:With CA agriculture can become
part of the solution!
Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!
More information :http://www.fao.org/ag/caMore information :http://www.fao.org/ag/ca