Potential and sustainability for carbon sequestration with improved soil management in agricultural soils of China

Download Potential and sustainability for carbon sequestration with improved soil management in agricultural soils of China

Post on 30-Aug-2016




1 download

Embed Size (px)


<ul><li><p>arb</p><p>ric</p><p>i Ca</p><p>s Rese</p><p>ng 100</p><p>orm 2</p><p>e 12 D</p><p>Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environme1. Introduction</p><p>Agricultural soils generally have lower organic matter</p><p>content than natural lands because of reduced C input (due to</p><p>annual harvest and removal of crop residue, etc.), high organic</p><p>C decomposition (due to frequent tillage), increased soil</p><p>erosion (Paustian et al., 1997; Bowman et al., 1999; Lal,</p><p>2002a, 2004) and other factors. Many studies have demon-</p><p>strated that improved management practices can increase the</p><p>C content of arable soils towards the levels found in natural</p><p>lands (Smith et al., 2000a; West and Post, 2002; Lal, 2004).</p><p>Increasing agricultural soil stocks has been suggested as an</p><p>important measure to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere to</p><p>help stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations and has been</p><p>estimated that 0.40.9 Pg C year1 can be sequestered withinglobal agricultural soils (Paustian et al., 1998). The Kyoto</p><p>Protocol under Article 3.4 includes the component of C</p><p>uptake by soil management in the framework of controlling</p><p>greenhouse gases emissions and hence has generated a broad</p><p>interest in studying C sequestration of agricultural soils</p><p>through improved managements.</p><p>The industrial C emissions of China are about</p><p>1 Pg C year1, second only to the United States (Marlandet al., 2005). As a signatory country of the Kyoto Protocol,</p><p>although it currently has no obligation to cut carbon dioxide</p><p>emissions, China is looking for ways to curb C emission and</p><p>to enhance C sequestration. The arable land in China covers* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 6488 9808; fax: +86 10 6488 9399.</p><p>E-mail address: yanhm@lreis.ac.cn (H. Yan).</p><p>0167-8809/$ see front matter # 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.11.008Arable land soils generally have lower organic carbon (C) levels than soils under native vegetation; increasing the C stocks through</p><p>improved management is suggested as an effective means to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere. Chinas arable lands, accounting for 13% of</p><p>the worlds total, play an important role in soil C sequestration, but their potential to enhance C sequestration has not yet been quantitatively</p><p>assessed. The C sequestration by agricultural soils is affected by many environmental factors (such as climate and soil conditions), biological</p><p>processes (crop C fixation, decomposition and transformation), and crop and soil management (e.g. tillage and manure application).</p><p>Estimation of the C sequestration potential requires the quantification of the combined effects of these factors and processes. In this study, we</p><p>used a coupled remote sensing- and process-based ecosystem model to estimate the potential for C sequestration in agricultural soils of China</p><p>and evaluated the sustainability of soil C uptake under different soil management options. The results show that practicing no-tillage on 50%</p><p>of the arable lands and returning 50% of the crop residue to soils would lead to an annual soil C sequestration of 32.5 Tg C, which accounts for</p><p>about 4% of Chinas current annual C emission. Soil C sequestration with improved soil management is highly time-dependent; the effect</p><p>lasted for only 2080 years. Generally, practicing no-tillage causes higher rate and longer sustainability of soil C sequestration than only</p><p>increasing crop residue into soils. The potential for soil C sequestration varied greatly among different regions due to the differences in</p><p>climate, soil conditions and crop productivity.</p><p># 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</p><p>Keywords: Carbon sequestration; Soil management; Process model; Remote sensingAbstractPotential and sustainability for c</p><p>soil management in ag</p><p>Huimin Yan *, Mingku</p><p>Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resource</p><p>Anwai, Beiji</p><p>Received 5 April 2006; received in revised f</p><p>Available onlinon sequestration with improved</p><p>ultural soils of China</p><p>o, Jiyuan Liu, Bo Tao</p><p>arch, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 11A Datun Road,</p><p>101, China</p><p>7 October 2006; accepted 7 November 2006</p><p>ecember 2006</p><p>www.elsevier.com/locate/agee</p><p>nt 121 (2007) 325335</p></li><li><p>(Kern and Johnson, 1993; Freibauer et al., 2004; Lal, 2004;</p><p>Paustian et al., 1995; Buyanovsky and Wagner, 1998).</p><p>s andabout 124 Mha, accounting for about 13% of the worlds</p><p>total. Chinas agricultural soils have relatively low C content</p><p>level, because of intensive use, long cultivation history and</p><p>the use of crop residue as fuels and feed for domestic</p><p>animals, hence may have a great potential for C sequestra-</p><p>tion through improved land management. It is estimated that</p><p>about 90% of C uptake by agricultural systems would be</p><p>emitted or returned to the atmosphere (Lin et al., 1997). C.S.</p><p>Li et al. (2003) and K.R. Li et al. (2003) estimated that under</p><p>conventional soil management Chinas cropland are losing</p><p>1.6% of their soil organic carbon (SOC) while U.S.</p><p>croplands are only losing 0.1%. However, although there</p><p>are many studies describing agricultural SOC stocks (S.Q.</p><p>Wang et al., 2005; X.B. Wang et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2006),</p><p>SOC loss due to cultivation (Wu et al., 2003; Song et al.,</p><p>2005), and the significance of improved soil management on</p><p>increasing soil C sequestration (C.S. Li et al., 2003; K.R. Li</p><p>et al., 2003; S.Q. Wang et al., 2005; X.B. Wang et al., 2005),</p><p>few quantitative studies concerning agricultural soil C</p><p>sequestration have been undertaken at the national level in</p><p>China. Only Lin et al. (2002) and Lal (2002b) estimated soil</p><p>C sequestration potential in China through proposed</p><p>cropland management activities by IPCC, using the rates</p><p>of C gain for various activities within the corresponding</p><p>area. Therefore, there is a significant gap of spatially explicit</p><p>quantification on C sequestration potential and its sustain-</p><p>ability with improved soil management in the agricultural</p><p>soils of China.</p><p>Many studies have been conducted in other regions to</p><p>assess the potential of agricultural soil sequestration at</p><p>national or regional level, and have explored the options to</p><p>enhance C sequestration (e.g. Smith et al., 2000a,b;</p><p>Vleeshouwers and Verhagen, 2002; Marland et al., 2003;</p><p>West and Marland, 2002, 2003; Dendoncker et al., 2004).</p><p>Most of previous studies have used empirical approaches</p><p>based on a comparison of measured organic C levels between</p><p>arable and natural lands or on observations of the organic C</p><p>change with improved management at limited sites (Lal and</p><p>Bruce, 1999; Smith et al., 1997, 1998, 2000a,b; West and Post,</p><p>2002). However, soil C sequestration is a complex process that</p><p>is influenced by many factors, such as organic C inputs from</p><p>crop residue or applied organic manure, climatic and soil</p><p>conditions, and the original C levels, and thus has high spatio-</p><p>temporal heterogeneity. A realistic estimate of the C</p><p>sequestration potential at regional or national scales requires</p><p>integrating the effects of various factors that affect C inputs to</p><p>and loss from soils and accounting the inherent high spatial</p><p>heterogeneity and temporal variability. Some studies have</p><p>linked site level process-based model with GIS to extrapolate</p><p>point measurements to regional scales (Falloon et al., 1998,</p><p>2000; Zimmerman et al., 2005). A combination of process-</p><p>based mechanistic modeling and satellite remote sensing is an</p><p>effective approach to integrate the effects of various factors on</p><p>soil C processes and to quantify the high spatial heterogeneity</p><p>in the rates of the C sequestration. Remotely sensed surface</p><p>H. Yan et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystem326properties combined with biogeochemical models have beenCurrently, no-tillage is practiced on only 5% of the worlds</p><p>cropland (1379 Mha globally) (Lal, 2004). The amount of</p><p>crop residue produced in the world is a large quantity, about</p><p>3.5 Pg year1, but only 5060% of the residue producedmay be returned to the soil (Lal, 1999). In China, only about</p><p>25% is returned to the fields (Ministry of Agriculture of</p><p>China, 1998). Most crop residue was either used as fuel or</p><p>feed for domestic animals in rural areas before 1980s, or</p><p>burned on field after 1980s when farmers ceased taking crop</p><p>straw as fuel due to improved living conditions. So, the</p><p>objectives of this study were to: (1) use a coupled remote</p><p>sensing- and process-based ecosystem model of CEVSA</p><p>(Cao and Woodward, 1998; Cao et al., 2003) to make a</p><p>spatially explicit quantification of the C sequestration</p><p>potential of Chinas arable lands; (2) evaluate the effec-</p><p>tiveness of different management options based on the</p><p>modelled C uptake rate and its sustainability; (3) make a</p><p>mechanistic analysis on the regional pattern of C</p><p>sequestration potential. The soil management options</p><p>considered in the present study are practicing no-tillage</p><p>and increasing crop residue input into soils.</p><p>2. Materials and methods</p><p>Estimation of soil C sequestration requires quantification</p><p>of the rates of C inputs and releases under improved soil</p><p>management. The source of increment in SOC is the net C</p><p>fixed by crops, usually measured as net primary productiv-</p><p>ity (NPP), but only a part of the fixed C actually is</p><p>incorporated into soils while the other parts are removed for</p><p>harvest or for clearing the field. Soils lose C from</p><p>heterotrophic respiration (HR), soil erosion by wind and</p><p>water. In the present study, only HR is included in</p><p>calculating soil C loss. The soil C sequestration was</p><p>estimated using a coupled remote sensing- and process-</p><p>based model (Fig. 1) that calculates the C inputs from crop</p><p>growth and the decomposition of C under differentused to predict C fluxes into and out of ecosystems and to</p><p>evaluate potential mechanisms of terrestrial CO2 sequestra-</p><p>tion (Nemani et al., 2003; Cao et al., 2004).</p><p>Soil C sequestration can be achieved by increasing the net</p><p>flux of C from the atmosphere to the terrestrial biosphere by</p><p>storing more of the C from net primary production in the</p><p>longer-term C pools in the soil or by slowing decomposition.</p><p>No-tillage can significantly reduce soil C release by</p><p>reducing the turnover of soil aggregates and the exposing</p><p>of young and labile organic matter to microbe decomposi-</p><p>tion (Paustian et al., 2000). This method has been taken as an</p><p>effective and environmentally friendly soil C sequestration</p><p>strategy (Lal, 2004). No-tillage and preferential crop</p><p>residues management (increasing C input) are two important</p><p>and widely recognized measures to enhance C sequestration</p><p>Environment 121 (2007) 325335management options.</p></li><li><p>s and2.1. Crop NPP and C inputs into soils</p><p>The rate of C input into agricultural soils was calculated</p><p>as the proportion of crop NPP that is returned into soils,</p><p>including crop residues and manure application. The NPP in</p><p>a given area at the present time was estimated using a remote</p><p>sensing-based production efficiency model, GLO-PEM. The</p><p>model consists of linked components that describe processes</p><p>of canopy radiation absorption, utilization, autotrophic</p><p>respiration, and the regulation of these processes by</p><p>environmental factors such as temperature, water vapor</p><p>pressure deficit, and soil moisture (Prince and Goward,</p><p>1995; Cao et al., 2004). It calculates NPP as follows:</p><p>H. Yan et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystem</p><p>Fig. 1. A schematic representation of the model for estimating soil carbon</p><p>sequestration. The meaning of acronyms are as follows: fraction of photo-</p><p>synthetically active radiation (FPAR), light use efficiency (LUE), auto-</p><p>trophic respiration (Ra), gross primary production (GPP), net primary</p><p>production (NPP), soil organic matter (SOM).NPP X</p><p>tStNteg Ra (1)</p><p>where St is the incident PAR in time t, Nt the fraction of</p><p>incident photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) absorbed</p><p>by vegetation canopy (FPAR) calculated as a linear function</p><p>of NDVI (Prince and Goward, 1995), eg the light useefficiency of the absorbed PAR by vegetation in terms of</p><p>gross primary production, and Ra is the autotrophic respira-</p><p>tion calculated as a function of standing aboveground bio-</p><p>mass, air temperature, and photosynthetic rate.</p><p>The NPP of crops consists of the organic C in the</p><p>economic products (e.g. grain), roots and straw (stems,</p><p>leaves, stalks, etc.), which were calculated using the C</p><p>allocation parameters as given in Table 1.</p><p>The C in the economic products of crops is usually</p><p>removed from crop lands; a part of the C in straw and roots is</p><p>removed away for other uses (e.g. fuel and livestock feed) or</p><p>is burned for clearing the field, and only the remaining C</p><p>enters into soil as the source of C. In addition, organic</p><p>manure is also an important C source for agricultural soils,</p><p>however, in China most of organic manure originated fromcrop products. At present, according to the national statistic</p><p>data, altogether 25% residues are returned into soils with</p><p>17% being directly incorporated into soils and 8% as organic</p><p>manure input into soils in China (State Environmental</p><p>Protection Administration of China, 2000). In the present</p><p>study, the rate of C input into the soil was estimated as a part</p><p>of NPP based on the C allocation among crop organs and the</p><p>survey of actual data inputs, including from the applied</p><p>organic manure. C input included all roots and returned</p><p>straw, and the proportions of NPP to roots and straws were</p><p>calculated by the mean value of different crops listed in</p><p>Table 1 because the crop types are unavailable for the</p><p>present.</p><p>2.2. SOC decomposition</p><p>The rate of C release from agricultural soils was</p><p>calculated as the rate of heterotrophic respiration using a</p><p>process-based ecosystem model, CEVSA (Cao and Wood-</p><p>ward, 1998; Cao et al., 2003). In simulating organic carbon</p><p>transformation, decomposition and accumulation, CEVSA</p><p>divides soil organic matter into surface litter, root litter,</p><p>microbes, and slow and passive C pools, each of which has a</p><p>specific decay rate (Cao et al., 2003). All SOC transforma-</p><p>tions and decomposition in these pools are treated as first-</p><p>order rate reactions that are affected by temperature, soil</p><p>moisture, nitrogen availability, soil texture, and the lignin/</p><p>nitrogen ratio.</p><p>The original CEVSA did not consider the effects of</p><p>tillage on SOC dynamics. In natural lands, soil organic</p><p>matter is physically protected in microaggregates to</p><p>microbial decomposition. Tillage of arable lands enhances</p><p>soil organic matter decomposition by disturbing the physical</p><p>protection. It is estimated that the decay rate of SOM in</p><p>cultivated soils is several times higher than that of natural</p><p>Environment 121 (2007) 325335 327</p><p>Table 1</p><p>Carbon allocation to economic products, straw and roots (Li et al., 1994)</p><p>Cropa Grain Straw Root</p><p>Wheat 0.28 0.42 0.3</p><p>Corn 0.3 0.44 0.26</p><p>Cotton 0.19 0.48 0.33</p><p>Soybeans 0.28 0.44 0.28</p><p>a Scientific names: wheat (Triticum aestivum), corn (Zea mays), cotton</p><p>(Gossypium hirsutum) and soybeans (Glycine max).lands (Balesdent et al., 2000; Six et al., 1998; Li et al., 1994).</p><p>In the present study, The CEVSA model was modified to</p><p>account the effect of tillage by using a parameter that</p><p>measures the increases on the decay rates of different C</p><p>pools relative to that in soils with no tillage (Leite et al.,</p><p>2004) (Table 2).</p><p>2.3. Data sources and model running</p><p>We use the coupled models of GLO...</p></li></ul>


View more >