p ractices in irrigated agriculture in uzbekistan that contribute to climate change, and options to...
TRANSCRIPT
Practices in irrigated agriculture in Uzbekistan that contribute to climate change, and options to
mitigate climate change impacts
John Lamers and Ahmad Manschadi
Outline
The ZEF/UNESCO project in Khorezm
Contributions of selected agricultural practices to C sequestration and options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
Some points for discussion
Scope of the ZEZ/UNESCO Project
Resource Use Resource Use TechnologiesTechnologies Social and Economic Social and Economic
ContextContext
Agricultural and Agricultural and Environmental PoliciesEnvironmental Policies
An interdisciplinary research and education project to conceptualize innovative options for
water and land use
ZEF/UNESCO Project
• Overall goal: restructuring concept
Human capacity building
• PhDs: 50, completed 22 (12 from Uzbekistan)
• MSc. Program: 76 M.Sc.
• 74 Bachelors at UrDU trained
• 12 Post-Docs (6 at ZEF, 1 DLR, 5 in Urgench)
• 3 INTAS Post-Docs in Urgench
• 2 Uzbek Professorships concluded
• 1 junior professorship of the Bosch foundation (5 Ph.D students
• KRASS/NGO
Agriculture and land use: 31% of global greenhouse gas emissions
GHG emissions by sector in 2004, Source: IPCC
Source: Scherr 2009
agriculture handles 40% of land:
• agriculture is contributing to CC• agriculture is directly affected by
CC • agriculture can mitigate and
adapt to CC
agriculture handles 40% of land:
• agriculture is contributing to CC• agriculture is directly affected by
CC • agriculture can mitigate and
adapt to CC
Agriculture and Climate Change
Reicosky, 2008Reicosky, 2008
Contribution of agriculture to CC
N-Fertilizer Management and global warming
Current N management practice
o Nitrogen is the most yield limiting factor (N-fertiliser → 50% of yield)
o Current N management is based on experimental results
o Farmers follow blue print recommendations
o Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) ~20-40%
N2O N2O
9
Cotton production zones in Uzbekistan
CO2 N2OCH4
?
Greenhouse gas emissions from fertilisation in irrigated agriculture
11
A M J J A S A M J J A S
10
20
30
0
25
50
75
100
100
50
00
25
50
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Soi
l Tem
pera
ture
[C]
WFP
S [%
]
20062005
Irrigation
irri
gatio
n [m
m d
-1]
N2O
-Flu
x [µ
g N
m-2h-1
]
• 80-95% of the total flux after concomitant irrigation and fertilization
Nitrous oxide emissions from cotton
AN75
AN87.5
AN87.5
AS42
AS42
U115
• 0.9 – 6.5 kg-N2O /ha/season
• 0.5 - 2.6% of the total fertilizer applied
Source: Scheer 2008
• The emissions can be attributed to
the management practice:
– high fertilizer amounts +
irrigation + high soil
temperature + microbial
activity
=> enhanced denitrification
12
When N emissions do occur?
12
NO3→ NO2 → NO → N2O → N2
Estimated N losses from cotton
13
ATG 2005 ATG 2006 Urdu LI Urdu HI ATC 2005012345678
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180 N
2O (observed)
NO (estimated) N
2 (estimated)
N-f
lux k
g/h
a/s
ea
so
n
• Highest losses: N2
• 40% of the total N-fertilizer applied
14
2-years (2005/2006)
Different fertilizer/irrigation
5 different land-use systems
Annual cropping systems:•Cotton•Winter wheat •Rice
Perennial land-use systems:•Poplar plantation•Tugai riparian forest
Field measurements (CH4, N2O)
Source: Scheer 2008
Closed chamber system (manually sampled)
CH4 and N2O emissions in different land-use
15
Rice Winter Cotton Poplar Tugai 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Wheat
Flu
x C
O 2 E
q. [k
g/h
a/d
ay]
CH4
N2O
15
CO2
CO2
N losses (gaseous + leached) are
substantial (~20-60% of the amounts
of N applied). This represents an
economic loss of about 36 million
USD for Uzbekistan, annually and a
burden for the environment
Accumulated interpretation
16
Options for effective nitrogen management in cotton, wheat & maize
17
Leaf Color Chart (LCC)- Simple tool - None destructive plant testing - Real-time nitrogen management - Easy to use- Lower accuracy- Inexpensive (1 US$/piece )
SPAD 502 / Chlorophyl meter (€400)- Quick and easy measurements- Sensor-based N management - High accuracy- None destructive plant testing - Real-time nitrogen management- Help to predict the yield potential
Greenseeker (€2,500)
The tools help farmers to determine the right time & rate of N application
Practice
•Slow releasing fertilizers •Coated fertilizers•NH4-based fertilizers•Mulching•Deeper incorporation of fertilisers•Alternative irrigation modes (drip irrigation, fertigation)•Alternative crops (increasing bio-diversity & C4 plants) and rotation and intercropping
Take home messagesTake home messagesScience
Options to mitigate CC Impacts:
Conservation agriculture in irrigated drylands
Worldwide Adoption of CA 2004Worldwide Adoption of CA 2004
Australia 9.0
Rest of the World 4.4
Brazil 23.6
Paraguay 1.7
Argentina 18.3
Total 95.5 millon ha
((millionsmillions ha)ha)
Canada 12.5
USA 25.3
Source: Friedrich 2006
What about such options in irrigated agriculture?
In collaboration with TIIM, ICARDA/Cimmyt, Cotton Research institute, FAO
Soil conservation agriculture in irrigated agriculture
Pictures by A. Pulatov
Soil conservation agriculture in irrigated agriculture
Pictures by M. Devkota
Cotton on permanent bed after cover crop
Maize on permanent beds after wheat
Wheat on permanent beds after cotton
Benefits of CA
Ergamberdiev, Tursunov
• SOM : significant increase due to mulching and no-till
• Yields not lower than conventional practices but increased due to mulching. Water savings up to 20-30%.
• Reduction machinery use and costs substantial.
• Salinity: significant decrease in the rise of soil salinity
• Seeder can be reproduced in Uzbekistan at low costs: ca. 6.5 million Soum
• Conservation agriculture is an option for the irrigated agriculture to improve soils, provides ecological sustainble agriculture basis, reduce salinity increase, improve farmers income.
CA and climate change:• adaptation through better drought
tolerance• adaptation through better water
infiltration (less flooding) • mitigation through emission
reductions (fuel, N2O, CH4)
• mitigation through carbon sequestration up to 0.2 t.ha-1.y-1 C
CA and climate change:• adaptation through better drought
tolerance• adaptation through better water
infiltration (less flooding) • mitigation through emission
reductions (fuel, N2O, CH4)
• mitigation through carbon sequestration up to 0.2 t.ha-1.y-1 C
Take home messagesTake home messagesPractice
Science
Options to mitigate CC Impacts:
Trees in irrigated drylands?
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Agroforestry Grazingmanagement
Forestmanagement
Croplandmanagement
Po
ten
tial
Car
bo
n S
equ
estr
atio
n b
y 20
40
(Mt
C y
-1)
Carbon sequestration potential of four land use systems
(Source: IPCC, 2000)
28
AFFORESTATION AS AN ADAPTIVE AND MITIGATING LAND USE STRATEGY
Conversion of the degraded cropland to tree
plantations
Resources saved can be used on productive agricultural land
Environmental services:
Improving soil Nitrogen Carbon sequestration Provision of useful products Amenity and aesthetics
Ecosystem rehabilitation
Bio-amelioration:How our 2 ha field looked in 2004
Soil EC (0-0.4 m) – 5-27 dS m-1
Total N – 0.04-0.06 %Soil organic carbon – 0.72-0.81%
Biodrainage
TimberLeaf fodder
Wood and non-wood benefits
Fruits
Dec
om
po
siti
on
Aesthetic valueRenewable
Energy
Nitrogen fixation
Carbon sequestration
Soil salinity
Soil carbon sequestration
Root development
Including farm forestry and agro forestry Including farm forestry and agro forestry
in Khorezmin Khorezm
C-total-, C-org-, C-ox-content (%) of different land-use systemsC-total-, C-org-, C-ox-content (%) of different land-use systems0-10 cm depth (n=3, Experimental tree plantation: n=12).0-10 cm depth (n=3, Experimental tree plantation: n=12). Bars with same letter are not significantly Bars with same letter are not significantly different according to ANOVA, Tukey test at p<0.05different according to ANOVA, Tukey test at p<0.05/ /
CARBON SEQUESTRATION IN SOIL AND BIOMASS (5th year of afforestation; 2,300 stems per ha)
32
20% increase in soil organic C, 2-7 t ha-1
10-20 t ha-1 of C sequestered in trees in 5 years
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
E. angustifolia P. euphratica U. pumila
Car
bo
n s
equ
stra
tio
n,
t h
a-1
woody biomass
soil (0-20cm)
140-300 USD ha-1 of potential earnings under CDM
Increased productive capacity of land establishment with
little irrigation
improved soil fertility
financially profitability
AFFORESTATION AS AN ADAPTIVE AND MITIGATING LAND USE STRATEGY
Land use rights for longer periods
Lack of incentives Poor market for
tree products Insufficient
awareness
Mitigation options in the forestry sectorMitigation options in the forestry sector
Mitigation of GHG emissions in the forestry sector Mitigation of GHG emissions in the forestry sector can be achieved through numerous measures, can be achieved through numerous measures,
such as:such as:• Afforestation (enhancing sinks);Afforestation (enhancing sinks);• Reforestation (enhancing sinks);Reforestation (enhancing sinks);• Forest management (enhancing sinks, reducing emissions);Forest management (enhancing sinks, reducing emissions);• Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
(REDD) (reducing emissions);(REDD) (reducing emissions);• Harvested wood product management; Harvested wood product management; • Agroforestry (enhancing sinks); Agroforestry (enhancing sinks); • Use of forestry products for bioenergy to replace fossil fuel use Use of forestry products for bioenergy to replace fossil fuel use
(avoiding or displacing emissions); and(avoiding or displacing emissions); and• Tree species improvement to increase biomass productivity and Tree species improvement to increase biomass productivity and
carbon sequestration (enhancing sinks). carbon sequestration (enhancing sinks).
Bio-amelioration:How our 2 ha field looked in 2004
Soil EC (0-0.4 m) – 5-27 dS m-1
Total N – 0.04-0.06 %Soil organic carbon – 0.72-0.81%
May 2006
September 2008
Take home messagesTake home messages
Perennials in farming system Increased C sequestration in soil &
and wood Restoring degraded lands &
watersheds Protecting natural forests &
grasslands Promote carbon markets
PracticeScience
Agriculture directly affected by CC
A Modelling analysis for crop production
Modeling single crop growth
500
1500
2500
3500
4500
5500
0 50 100 150 200 250
Yie
ld (k
g h
a-1
)
N rate (kg ha-1)
DAP-U-U ® U-U-U DAP-U-U (F) DAP-S-S observed mean
41
Modeling for decision making
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
21.08.06 10.10.06 29.11.06 18.01.07 09.03.07 28.04.07 17.06.07 06.08.07
Био
мас
са, т
/га
Моделлаштирилган
Тажрибада олинган
Fast Graph Output
Implications of changes in climate for agricultural systems
Implications of changes in climate for agricultural systems
Adapting Cropping Systems Management
to Climate Change –
- Modelling Analysis for Wheat production
- Research for elaborating synthetic
wheat (ICARDA/PFU)
Modelling - Translating Climate Change Scenarios onto Crop Productivity Impacts
Crop Model
Inputs:
-Weather data
-CO2 (ppm)
-Management
-Crop species
/ cultivar
Outputs:
-Crop phenology
-Crop yield
-Soil condition
(C, nutrients,
salinity etc.)
Transfer of Technology
Effective transfer of technology requires good understanding of the problemEffective transfer of technology requires good, tested technologies
Developed based on science Cross-checked and practice-tested
Effective transfer of technology requires looking beyond
Transdisciplinary implicationsAccompanying measuresEnabling ‚environment‘
Dissemination of Innovations
• KRASS (Khorezm Rural Advisory Support Service) is a self-governing, independent, non-governmental organisation.
KRASS for improving rural livelihood
The NGO KRASS was registered finally in November 2008, in the Khorezm region of Uzbekistan but mandated to work throughout the country.
Urgench State University/ZEF UNESCO Khorezm Project Khamid Olimjan street 14, 220100 Urgench, Khorezm Tel: +998 62 224 34 13, Fax: +998 62 224 33 47e-mail: [email protected]: www.KRASS.uz
More information: www.uni-bonn.de/khorezm
Further take home messages
Thanks you for your attention, but …..
We are not at the table,
But we are on the menu