Can no-tillage stimulate carbon sequestration in agricultural soils? A meta-analysis of paired experiments

Download Can no-tillage stimulate carbon sequestration in agricultural soils? A meta-analysis of paired experiments

Post on 02-Sep-2016

212 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 139 (2010) 224231

    Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

    Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

    journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .co

    Can no inA meta

    Zhongkua State Key Lab of Scb CSIRO Land ac MOE Key Labo Unive

    a r t i c l

    Article history:Received 12 JuReceived in revised form 3 August 2010Accepted 4 August 2010Available online 9 September 2010

    Keywords:Soil carbon changeConventional tConservation tSoil proleCropping systeFertilizationClimate

    s ha(C) sequestration in soils. However, study results are inconsistent and varying from signicant increaseto signicant decrease. It is unclear whether this variability is caused by environmental, or managementfactors or by sampling errors and analysis methodology. Using meta-analysis, we assessed the responseof soil organic carbon (SOC) to conversion of management practice from conventional tillage (CT) tono-tillage (NT) based on global data from 69 paired-experiments, where soil sampling extended deeperthan 40 cm. We found that cultivation of natural soils for more than 5 years, on average, resulted in soil

    1

    1. Introdu

    Soil cultnotable lanbon (C) fromand GiffordC emission(CAPs) arecultural soiet al., 2010)sequester 033.3100%(Lal, 2004).tillage (CT)

    CorresponE-mail add

    0167-8809/$ doi:10.1016/j.illageillage

    m

    C loss of more than 20 tha , with no signicant difference between CT and NT. Conversion from CT toNT changed distribution of C in the soil prole signicantly, but did not increase the total SOC except indouble cropping systems. After adoptingNT, soil C increasedby3.152.42 t ha1 (mean95% condenceinterval) in the surface 10 cm of soil, but declined by 3.301.61 t ha1 in the 2040 cm soil layer. Overall,adopting NT did not enhance soil total C stock down to 40 cm. Increased number of crop species inrotation resulted in less C accumulation in the surface soil and greater C loss in deeper layer. Increasedcrop frequency seemed to have the opposite effect and signicantly increased soil C by 11% in the 060 cmsoil. Neither mean annual temperature and mean annual rainfall nor nitrogen fertilization and durationof adopting NT affected the response of soil C stock to the adoption of NT. Our results highlight thatthe role of adopting NT in sequestrating C is greatly regulated by cropping systems. Increasing croppingfrequency might be a more efcient strategy to sequester C in agro-ecosystems. More information on theeffects of increasing crop species and frequency on soil C input and decomposition processes is neededto further our understanding on the potential ability of C sequestration in agricultural soils.

    2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

    ction

    ivation for agricultural production is one of the mostd use change that has led to signicant losses of car-soil (Mann, 1986; Davidson and Ackerman, 1993; Guo

    , 2002). To offset or mitigate the stimulating effect ofon global warming, conservation agricultural practicesrecommended to potentially increase C stock in agri-ls (West and Post, 2002; Lal, 2004; Smith, 2004; Luo. Globally, agricultural soils are estimated to potentially.40.8 PgC per year by adopting CAPs, which representsof the total potential of C sequestration in world soilsAmong all CAPs options, conversion from conventionalto no-tillage (NT)was considered to be one of the poten-

    ding author. Tel.: +61 2 6246 5964; fax: +61 2 6246 5965.ress: Enli.Wang@csiro.au (E. Wang).

    tially efcient strategies (Smith et al., 1998; Paustian et al., 2000;Six et al., 2004)with the rate of C sequestrationof 1001000kgha1

    per year (Lal, 2004). However, this view is based on the informationfrom most studies on carbon change in the surface soil (

  • Z.Luoet

    al./Agriculture,Ecosystem

    sand

    Environment

    139 (2010) 224231225

    Table 1Summary of data for the studies in the meta-analysis of soil organic carbon (SOC).

    Code Location Duration(years)

    Replicates Crop system Residuemanagements

    Tillagedepth (cm)

    N fertilizer(kg Nha1)

    Samplingdepth (cm)

    Reference

    1 Kanawha, IA, USA 7 3 Corn, soybean Retained 25 135 60 Al-Kaisi et al. (2005)2 Sutherland, IA, USA 7 3 Corn, soybean Retained 25 135 60 Al-Kaisi et al. (2005)3 Nashua, IA, USA 7 3 Corn, soybean Retained 25 135 60 Al-Kaisi et al. (2005)4 Armstrong, IA, USA 7 3 Corn, soybean Retained 25 135 60 Al-Kaisi et al. (2005)5 Crawfordsville, IA, USA 7 3 Corn, soybean Retained 25 135 60 Al-Kaisi et al. (2005)6 Ames, IA, USA 3 3 Corn, soybean Retained 25 135 60 Al-Kaisi et al. (2005)7 Selvanera, Lleida, Spain 18 3 Wheat, barley, rapeseed Retained 50 NA 40 lvaro-Fuentes et al. (2008)8 Agramunt, Lleida, Spain 15 4 Wheat, barley Retained 30 NA 40 lvaro-Fuentes et al. (2008)9 Penaor, Zaragoza, Spain 16 3 Barley Retained 35 NA 40 lvaro-Fuentes et al. (2008)

    10 Penaor, Zaragoza, Spain 16 3 Barley with fallow Retained 35 NA 40 lvaro-Fuentes et al. (2008)11 Harrington, PEI, Canada 8 4 Wheat, barley, soybean Retained 20 NA 60 Angers et al. (1997)12 La Pocatire, Qu, Canada 6 4 Barley Removed 25 NA 60 Angers et al. (1997)13 Normandin, Qu, Canada 3 4 Barley Retained 25 NA 60 Angers et al. (1997)14 Ottawa, ONT, Canada 5 4 Corn Retained 25 NA 60 Angers et al. (1997)15 Ottawa, ONT, Canada 5 4 Wheat Retained 25 NA 60 Angers et al. (1997)16 Delhi, ONT, Canada 4 4 Corn Retained 25 NA 60 Angers et al. (1997)17 Harrow, ONT, Canada 11 2 Corn Retained 15 NA 60 Angers et al. (1997)18a Fremont, OH, USA 15 3 Corn, soybean Retained NA 225 60 Blanco-Canqui and Lal (2008)19a Troy, PA, USA 20 3 Corn NA NA 50b 60 Blanco-Canqui and Lal (2008)20 PEI, Canada 9 4 Wheat, barley, soybean Retained 25 NA 40 Carter (1996)21 PEI, Canada 15 4 Many Retained 20 73.7 60 Carter (2005)22a 111C, IN, USA 10 4 Corn, soybean Retained NA NA 60 Christopher et al. (2009)23a 114B, IN, USA 23 4 Corn, soybean Retained NA 108 60 Christopher et al. (2009)24a 122, IN, USA 10 4 Corn, soybean Retained NA NA 60 Christopher et al. (2009)25a 99, OH, USA 5 4 Corn, soybean, wheat Retained NA 20 60 Christopher et al. (2009)26a 111A, OH, USA 18 4 Corn, soybean Retained NA 76 60 Christopher et al. (2009)27a 111B, OH, USA 20 4 Corn, soybean, wheat Retained NA 101 60 Christopher et al. (2009)28a 111D, OH, USA 5 4 Corn, soybean Retained NA 44 60 Christopher et al. (2009)29a 126, OH, USA 15 4 Corn, soybean, rye Retained NA 29.9c 60 Christopher et al. (2009)30 Warwick, Queensland,

    Australia13 4 Wheat, barley Retained 10 NA 120 Dalal (1989)

    31 ONT, Canada 25 4 Corn, soybean Retained 18 NA 60 Deen and Kataki (2003)32 Rosemount, MN, USA 23 3 Corn, soybean Removed NA 0 45 Dolan et al. (2006)33 Rosemount, MN, USA 23 3 Corn, soybean Removed NA 200 45 Dolan et al. (2006)34 Rosemount, MN, USA 23 3 Corn, soybean Retained NA 0 45 Dolan et al. (2006)35 Rosemount, MN, USA 23 3 Corn, soybean Retained NA 200 45 Dolan et al. (2006)36 Luancheng, China 5 3 Wheat, cornd Retained 20 268 90 Dong et al. (2009)37 West Lafayette, IN, USA 27 4 Corn, soybean Retained 25 222 100 Gl et al. (2007)38 Lowveld, Zimbabwe 5 3 Wheat, cottond Retained 25 122 60 Gwenzi et al. (2009)39a Tnikon, Switzerland 19 4 Wheat, maize, canola Retained 25 150 40 Hermle et al. (2008)40 Waseca, MN, USA 14 4 Corn Retained 30 225 45 Huggins et al. (2007)41 Waseca, MN, USA 14 4 Soybean Retained 30 225 45 Huggins et al. (2007)42 Waseca, MN, USA 14 4 Corn, soybean Retained 30 225 45 Huggins et al. (2007)43 Narrabri, NSW, Australia 9 4 Cotton Retained 30 140 60 Hulugalle and Entwistle (1997)44a Narrabri, NSW, Australia 5 4 Cotton Retained 30 120 60 Hulugalle (2000)45a South Charleston, OH, USA 41 4 Corn NA NA NA 80 Jarecki and Lal (2005)46a Hoytville, OH, USA 16 3 Corn, soybean, oat NA NA NA 80 Jarecki and Lal (2005)47 Crdoba, Spain 6 4 Wheat Retained 30 100 90 Lpez-Bellido et al. (1997)48 Londrina, Brazil 21 3 Manyd Retained 20 NA 40 Machado et al. (2003)49 Qu, Canada 13 4 Corn, soybean Retained 20 40 60 Poirier et al. (2009)50 Qu, Canada 12 4 Corn, soybean Retained 20 40 60 Poirier et al. (2009)51 Qu, Canada 11 4 Corn, soybean Retained 20 40 60 Poirier et al. (2009)52 Bushland, TX, USA 10 3 Wheat Retained NA 45 65 Potter et al. (1997)53 Bushland, TX, USA 10 3 Wheat Retained NA 0 65 Potter et al. (1997)

  • 226 Z. Luo et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 139 (2010) 224231Ta

    ble

    1Su

    mm

    ary

    ofdat

    afo

    rth

    est

    udie

    sin

    them

    eta-

    anal

    ysis

    ofso

    ilor

    ganic

    carb

    on(S

    OC).

    Cod

    eLo

    cation

    Dura

    tion

    (yea

    rs)

    Rep

    lica

    tes

    Cro

    psy

    stem

    Res

    idue

    man

    agem

    ents

    Tillag

    edep

    th(c

    m)

    Nfe

    rtiliz

    er(k

    gN

    ha

    1)

    Sam

    pling

    dep

    th(c

    m)

    Ref

    eren

    ce

    54Bush

    land,T

    X,U

    SA10

    3So

    rghum

    Ret

    ained

    NA

    4565

    Potter

    etal

    .(19

    97)

    55Bush

    land,T

    X,U

    SA10

    3So

    rghum

    Ret

    ained

    NA

    065

    Potter

    etal

    .(19

    97)

    56Po

    nta

    Gro

    ssa,

    Para

    n,

    Bra

    zil

    225

    Man

    ydRet

    ained

    NA

    50.5

    40S

    etal

    .(20

    01)

    57a

    Ponta

    Gro

    ssa,

    Para

    n,

    Bra

    zil

    225

    Man

    ydRet

    ained

    2020

    c40

    San

    dLa

    l(20

    09)

    58a

    Pass

    oFu

    ndo,

    Bra

    zil

    133

    Whea

    t,so

    ybea

    nd

    Ret

    ained

    2053

    100

    Sist

    ietal

    .(20

    04)

    59Pa

    sso

    Fundo,

    Bra