significance of carbon sequestration in agriculture and climate security

1

WELCOME

2

SARDARKRUSHINAGAR DANTIWADA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

Significance of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Climatic Security

Praveen ThakurM.Sc. (Agri.)

Department of Agril. Chemistry & Soil Science C.P. College of AgricultureSDAU, Sardarkrushinagar

3


my) Time:Major Advisor

Dr. B.T. PatelProfessor, CIL, Directorate of

Research, SDAU, Sardarkrushinagar

Minor AdvisorDr. P.P. Chaudhari

Associate Professor, Dept. of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Tharad, SDAU, Sardarkrushinagar

4

Carbon- Climate Interaction

5


“Unpredictable changes in the chemical

composition of the earth’s atmosphere and climate

variability observed over comparable time periods

which magnify the challenge of increasing

agricultural production to feed the expanding

population.”

6

Chain of Climate change

Carbon Concentration

Solar radiation

Temperature

Rainfall pattern

Drought Floods

7

Fig. 1 : Contribution of Different Gases in Global GHG Emission

IPCC Report 2014

Fig.2: Global Greenhouse Gas Emission by Economic Sector

IPCC Report 2014

8

9

Fig. 3:Cumulative GHG Emissions 1990-2011 (% of World Total)

http://bit.ly/11SMpjA)World Resource Institute

10

Fig.4: Carbon Dioxide Concentration

11

Anthropogenic

URBANIZATION-Industrialization

- Emission of GHG’s

DEFORESTATION-Soil Erosion

INTENSIFIED AGRO-ECOSYSTEM-Secondary Salinity-Chemical Fertilizer

Natural

Sunspot and solar cycle

Ocean currents

Wild fires

Volcanic eruptions

Methane emission from marshy land

Causes of Climate Change

12

On Weather

On Biodiversity

Sea level rise

On Marine Organisms

On Agriculture

On Glaciers & Icesheet

On Economy

Impact of Climate Change

13

Agriculture

Population Dynamics of

pest and diseases

Genetic erosion

Depletion of water

level

Production and

productivity

Degradation of soil

nutrients

Depletion of nutritive

value

(Anon., 2013)

Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture

14

Fig.5 : Global Emission of Greenhouse GasesEstimated temperature in 21004.5°C Business as usual

2°C Path

3.5°C current national commitment with no change after the pledge period ending 2025-2030

2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

Billo

n to

ns C

O2 e

quiv

alen

t per

yea

r

0

100

150

200

(Science 350,2015)

7.4 °C

15


Carbon sequestration implies transferring

atmospheric CO2 into long-lived pools and

storing it securely so it not immediately

reemitted.

(Lal, 2004)

16

Fig. 6 : Global Carbon Cycle

Fluxes shown are approximate for the period 2000–05, as documented by the IPCC.(USGS Report, 2008)

17

CARBON STOCK

18

Table 1 : Global Soil Carbon Pool

Depth(m)Soil C Pool (Pg)

SOC SIC Total

0.3 704 234 938

1.0 1505 722 2227

2.0 3300 1700 5000

Permafrost (3m)

- - 1400-1700

(Batjes, 1996)

Table 2 : Carbon stock in Indian soil (Order-wise)

Soil Order Soil Depth (m)

Carbon Stock (Pg)

SOC SIC TC

Entisols 0-0.3 0.62 0.89 1.510-1.5 2.56 2.86 5.42

Vertisols 0-0.3 2.59 1.07 3.660-1.5 8.77 6.14 14.90

Inceptisols 0-0.3 2.17 0.62 2.790-1.5 5.81 7.04 12.85

Aridisols 0-0.3 0.74 1.40 2.140-1.5 2.02 13.40 15.42 Conti…19 (Bhattacharyya et al., 2000)

20

Soil Order Soil Depth (m) SOC SIC TCMollisols 0-0.3 0.09 00 0.09

0-1.5 0.49 0.07 0.56Alfisols 0-0.3 3.14 0.16 3.30

0-1.5 9.72 4.48 14.20Ultisols 0-0.3 0.20 0.0 0.20

0-1.5 0.55 0.0 0.55Total 0-0.3 9.55 4.14 13.69

0-1.5 29.92 33.98 63.9

(Bhattacharyya et al., 2000)

21

Table 3 : Organic and inorganic carbon stock in Indian soils (0-0.3m soil depth)

Soil Carbon

Pool

Alluvial soils(Pg)

Black soils(Pg)

Arid soils(Pg)

Brown forest soils (Pg)

Red soils (Pg)

Total (Pg)

Organic 2.79 2.56 0.71 0.12 3.33 9.55

Inorganic 1.52 1.08 1.39 00 0.15 4.14

Total 4.31 3.64 2.11 0.12 3.52 13.69

(Bhattacharyya et al , 2005)

Bioclimatic systems

Coverage (Mha)

SOC Stock (Pg)

SIC Stock(Pg)

Total Carbon Stock (Pg)

Arid cold 15.2 0.6 0.7 1.3

Arid hot 36.8 0.4 1.0 1.4

Semi-arid 116.4 2.9 1.9 4.8

Subhumid 105 2.5 0.3 2.8

Humid to per humid

34.9 2.1 0.04 2.14

Coastal 20.4 1.3 0.07 1.37

Ranges in rainfall; arid= <550mm; semi-arid= 550-1000mm; subhumid=1000-1500mm; humid to per humid= 1200-3200mm;

Table 4 : Soil carbon stocks in different bioclimatic systems in India

(Bhattacharyya et al., 2008)22

23

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50Soil organic C (stock)Soil inorganic C (stock)Area(%)

Rel

ativ

e co

ncen

trat

ion

of c

arbo

n st

ock

( % r

espe

ctiv

e st

ocks

)

Plateau & Himalaya Coastal IGP Gujarat Dry Island Hills

Fig.7 : Soil C stocks and areal extent of seven major agroclimatic zone of India

(Bhattacharyya et al. 2009)

24

Carbon- Agriculture Interaction

25

Indirect Role of Carbon in Agriculture

•Improving Soil Structure

•Sustaining Microbial & Faunal Activities

•Suppressing Soil Borne Pathogens

•Nutrient Supply

Fig.08 : Physical Properties in Soils of the DOK Farming Systems

Results are presented relative to CONFYM (=100%) in four radial graphs. Absolute values for 100% are as follows.Perco. stab:43.3 ml Min -1

Aggregate.stability:55%stable aggregates >250 mmBulk density: 1.23 g cm -3

( Mäder et al. 2002)26

Switzerland

Results are presented relative to CONFYM (=100%) in four radial graphs. Absolute values for 100% are as follows. Microbial biomass, 285 mg Cmic kg-1; dehydrogenase activity, 133mg TPF kg-1h-1; protease activity, 238 mg tyrosine kg-1 h-1; alkaline phosphatase, 33 mg phenol kg-1 h-1; saccharase, 526 mg reduced sugar kg-1 h-1; mycorrhiza, 13.4% root length colonized by mycorrhizal fungi.

Fig.09: Biological Properties in Soils of DOK Farming Systems

(Mäder et al. 2002)27

FIG. 10 : Monnier’s conceptual model

28

( Abiven et al. 2009)

Fig. 11 : Schematic overview of the relationships between time-to-maximum group and magnitude for the different organic product

( Abiven et al. 2009)

The circles represent the average of the different organic products categories in magnitude and in the time-to-maximum groups.

29

Fig.12: Effect of O.M. Decomposition on Diseases Suppression

( Bonanomi et al 2010)Data are expressed as percentage of the total number of studies (n=426) 30

Suppressing Soil Borne Pathogens

Data are expressed as percentage values calculated from the total number of studies within each OM type. The number of studies is reported in brackets.

Fig.13: Effect of Organic Matter Decomposition on Disease Suppression in Relation to the Organic Matter Type

(Bonanomi et al 2010)31

32

Fig.14: Disease Suppression Dynamics During Organic Matter Decomposition

(Bonanomi et al 2010)

Fig.15 : The Coupled Cycling of H2O, C, N, P, S and

the Ecosystem Services Generated

(Lal, 2010)33

34

Agriculture‘s Potentiality Towards Soil Carbon Sequestration

Treatment Initial soil C

(Mg ha-1)

SOC after 29 years(Mg ha-1)

C loss rate (Mg C ha-1

yr-1)

C Addition rate (Mg C ha-1yr-1 )

Turn over period (yr)

SMBC (kg ha-1)

Akola (Sorghum-Wheat)

Control 10.12 9.90 0.015 0.15 67 418

N - 11.66 0.060 0.70 17 444

NP - 12.32 0.086 1.06 12 537

NPK - 12.98 0.105 1.36 10 576

NPK +FYM - 15.40 0.124 1.91 8.1 803

Table 5 : Initial value, steady state value, overall rate of loss, rate of addition, period of turnover and soil biological activity in long term fertilizer and manuring at Akola

(Singh et al. 1996)35

VertisolAkola,(MH)

Table 6 : Amount of crop residue C inputs into soils across treatments and cropping systems

Cropping SystemAmount crop residue C inputs (Mg C ha-1y-1)

Treatment

MeanControl NPK NPK+Organics

Rice-mustard-sesame 1.88 2.76 3.75 2.80

Rice-wheat-fallow 1.82 3.33 3.97 3.04

Rice-fallow-berseem 2.45 3.17 4.16 3.26

Rice-wheat-jute 2.58 5.08 6.17 4.61

Rice-fallow-Rice 2.58 3.56 4.30 3.48

Mean 2.26 3.58 4.47 3.44

(Mandal et al.2007)36

Treatments Tillage

O.C.(g/kg) Total N (%)

Manuring CT MT MEAN CT MT MEAN

RDF (100%) 5.70 5.55 5.62 0.059 0.058 0.058

RDF (50%) 4.1 4.60 4.35 0.057 0.058 0.057

RDF (50%) + 5t FYM/ha 5.45 5.8 5.62 0.056 0.057 0.056

RDF (50%) + 10t FYM/ha 5.85 5.9 5.87 0.056 0.058 0.057

RDF (50%) + 15t FYM/ha 5.95 6.12 6.03 0.057 0.062 0.059

RDF (50%) + green manuring

5.61 5.59 5.60 0.058 0.060 0.059

Mean 5.44 5.59 - 0.057 0.059 -

SE (m)± 0.036 0.063 0.089 0.0002 0.00036 0.0005

CD (p=0.05) NS 0.186 0.261 0.0006 0.0011 0.0015

Conti…

Table 07: Effect of tillage and manuring on soil organic carbon, total nitrogen and yield of cotton

37 (Sonune et al. 2013)Akola

Medium Deep Vertisol

CT :Conventional tillagaeMT: Minimum tillageRDF(100%) 50:25:00 N:P:K kg/ha

Treatments Tillage

Seed cotton (kg/ha) Cotton (kg/ha)

Manuring CT MT MEAN CT MT MEAN

RDF (100%) 1262 1295 1278 3041 3149 3095

RDF (50%) 953 1002 978 2430 2596 2513

RDF (50%) + 5t FYM/ha 1138 1219 1178 2944 3195 3069

RDF (50%) + 10t FYM/ha 1300 1396 1348 3279 3349 3314

RDF (50%) + 15t FYM/ha 1500 1594 1547 3625 3732 3678

RDF (50%) + green manuring

1155 1245 1200 2987 3010 2998

Mean 1218 1292 3051 3172

SE (m)± 35.8 62 87.7 36.0 62 88

CD (p=0.05) NS 182 257 105 182 NS

(Sonune et al. 2013)


38

Cropping systems Available nutrients (kg/ha)

OC (g/kg)

Kharif Rabi Summer N P2O5 K2OC1:Pearlmillet Mustard Fallow 194 16.16 197 3.57C2: Greengram + Sunhemp (2:1) (BBF)- Castor

Castor continue Greengram 212 21.00 207 3.77

C3: Greengram+ Cowpea (2:1) (BBF)- Castor

Castor continue Sorghum + Cowpea (3:1)

214 22.13 193 3.45

C4: Greengram+ Sunheamp(2:1) (BBF)- Castor+ Bottlegourd

Castor continue Castor + Bottlegourd continue

206 19.10 205 3.73

C5: Bt Cotton + Sunhemp (1:2)- Castor + Bitter gourd

Bt Cotton + Castor continue

Castor + Bitter gourdContinue

218 20.40 204 3.68

C6: Greengram Fennel + Cauliflower (1:1)

Fennel Continue

202 21.11 202 3.43

C7: Greengram Mustard+ Lucerne

Lucerne continue

203 19.13 209 3.48

C8: Bt Cotton + Greengram(1:2) Bt Cotton + Castor after Greengram

Castor continue 213 17.32 219 3.65

Initial 195 15.92 198 0.33S. K. Nagar (Annual report 2013-14)

Loamy sand soil

Table 8 : Soil fertility status at the end of various cropping sequence

39

Table 9 : Effect of organic nutrient management on soil organic carbon stock and carbon sequestration rate (Rice-Rice sequence)

Treatments

Soil organic carbon content (g kg-1)

Bulk Density (t m-3)

Total soil organic carbon stock (t ha-1)

Soil organic carbon sequestration rate (t ha-1year-1)Initail 22.28 t ha-1

0-15cm 15-30cm 0-15cm 15-30cm 0-15cm 15-30cm Total

T1 7.84 5.72 1.65 1.72 19.40 14.76 34.16 1.98

T2 9.32 7.82 1.6 1.64 22.23 19.12 41.34 3.17

T3 11.25 7.26 1.58 1.62 26.66 17.64 44.30 3.67

T4 11.50 7.83 1.56 1.61 26.91 18.91 45.81 3.92

T5 11.43 8.27 1.55 1.59 26.57 19.72 46.29 4.00

T6 10.52 7.73 1.57 1.6 24.77 18.55 43.32 3.50

T7 10.24 7.60 1.58 1.61 24.27 18.35 42.62 3.35

SEm(±) 0.510 0.375 0.026 0.024 0.425 0.317 1.250 0.263

LSD (0.05) 1.58 1.13 0.08 0.08 1.275 0.96 3.86 0.81

Treatment detailsKharif T1: Dhanicha@ 25 kg seed ha-1;T2 : T1 + FYM 5t ha-1 (basal); T3 : T1 + vermicompost 2t ha-1 (basal); T4 : T1 + vermicompost 2t ha-1 (split);

T5 : T1 + FYM + vermicompost 2t ha-1 (split); T6 : T1 + FYM + vermicompost 2t ha-1 (basal); T7: T1 + FYM + PanchagavyaSummer T1 : Control ; T2 : FYM 5t ha-1 (basal); T3 : Vermicompost 2t ha-1 (basal);T4 : Vermicompost 2t ha-1 (split); T5 : FYM + vermicompost 2t

ha-1 (split);T6 : FYM + vermicompost 2t ha-1 (basal);T7 : FYM + Panchagavya(Pradhan et al. , 2015)

BhubaneswarSandy Loam 40

Table 10 : Soil organic carbon (SOC) pools under different management regimes in surface (0-10 cm) and subsurface (10-30 cm) paddy growing soils in fertilizer experiment at Barak Valley, Assam

Treatments

Sub fractionation of organic carbon% 0-10 cm

Very labile (CVL)

Labile (CL) Less Labile (CLL)

Non-Labile (CNL)

TOC(%)

Control 0.28 (22%) 0.04 (3%) 0.10 (8%) 0.88 (67%) 1.30a

VM 0.33 (24%) 0.10 (7%) 0.17 (12%) 0.76 (57%) 1.36b

Inorganic 0.30 (23%) 0.10 (8%) 0.14 (11%) 0.79 (59%) 1.33a

Organic 0.36 (25%) 0.13 (9%) 0.12 (8%) 0.85 (59%) 1.46ab

Organic+ inorganic

0.37 (26%) 0.14 (10%) 0.05 (4%) 0.87 (60%) 1.43ab

Control: without any organic and inorganic fertilizer; VM: village management (partially decomposed cow dung applied @ 70-80 Mg ha-1); Inorganic (NPK) fertilizer (130-100-60) urea, single superphosphate and muriate of potash); Organic manure (phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer and azobacter bio-fertilizer applied in two steps: seedlings dip andsoil application; Organic+Inorganic: both organic and inorganic fertilizer applied together

(Nath et al.,2015)

Conti…41

Treatments

Sub fractionation of organic carbon% 10-30cm

Very labile (CVL)

Labile (CL) Less Labile (CLL)

Non-Labile (CNL)

TOC(%)

Control 0.13 (19%) 0.06 (9%) 0.16 (23%) 0.35 (50%) 0.70a

VM 0.15 (19%) 0.10 (13%) 0.15 (20%) 0.40 (49%) 0.80b

Inorganic 0.13 (16%) 0.11 (14%) 0.17 (21%) 0.40 (49%) 0.81b

Organic 0.14 (19%) 0.09 (12%) 0.10 (14%) 0.41 (55%) 0.74ab

Organic+ inorganic

0.16 (19%) 0.09 (11%) 0.15 (18%) 0.45 (53%) 0.85b

Control: without any organic and inorganic fertilizer; VM: village management (partially decomposed cow dung applied @ 70-80 Mg ha-1); Inorganic (NPK) fertilizer (130-100-60) urea, single superphosphate and muriate of potash); Organic manure (phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer and azobacter bio-fertilizer applied in two steps: seedlings dip andsoil application; Organic+Inorganic: both organic and inorganic fertilizer applied together

(Nath et al.,2015)

Conti…42

43

Treatments

Sub fractionation of organic carbon%

0-30cmActive pool (CAP) Passive Pool (CPP)

Control 26% 74%VM 31% 69%Inorganic 30% 70%Organic 33% 67%Organic+ inorganic 33% 67%Control: without any organic and inorganic fertilizer; VM: village management (partially decomposed cow dung applied @ 70-80 Mg ha-1); Inorganic (NPK) fertilizer (130-100-60) urea, single superphosphate and muriate of potash); Organic (phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer and azobacter bio-fertilizer applied in two steps: seedlings dip andsoil application; Organic+Inorganic: both organic and inorganic fertilizer applied together

(Nath et al.,2015)

Table 11: Organic carbon (%) of soil and C sequestration under different MPTs after thirty year of plantation

TreatmentsOrganic carbon (%)

MeanC sequestration

in tree(kg/tree)

C sequestration in tree(t/ha)0-30 cm 30-60 cm 60-90 cm

Neem(Azadirachta indica) 0.81 0.35 0.32 0.49

(226.67) 1343.53 1492.81

Khejdi(Prosopis cineraria) 0.62 0.46 0.45 0.51

(240.00) 1497.82 1664.24

Gando baval(Prosopis juliflora) 0.58 0.57 0.35 0.50

(233.33) 1847.11 2052.35

Israel babool(Acacia tortolis) 0.83 0.59 0.47 0.63

(320.00) 1834.05 2037.83

Control 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.15 - -

SEm.± 0.03 0.02 0.02 223.22 248.02

C.D. at 5 % 0.11 0.07 0.07 N.S. N.S.

C.V. (%) 11.49 10.70 13.12 27.38 27.38

Figures in parentheses indicate the per cent values increase over control.

(Patel ,2016)S.K. NagarSandy Loam Soil 44

Con

stra

ints Soil Carbon Storage Potential

Biophysical, e.g. climate, soil type

Management, e.g. land-use tradition

Economic, e.g. pressure and drives

Political, e.g. failing incentives

MonthsYears

Decades

Centuries


45


CO

NC

LU

SIO

N Soil C sequestration is a bridge to the future until non-carbon fuel options take effect. The data indicate that projected annual global emissions during the next century would need to be reduced by more than 75 percent in order to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at about 550 ppm. This concentration would be about twice the level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. Soil C sequestration is certainly a step in the right direction to improve soils, increase crop yield and mitigate climate change through judicious land use and recommended management practices (RMPs) but decisions about soil carbon sequestration require careful consideration of priorities and tradeoffs among multiple resources.

46

Acknowledgements Dr. B.T. Patel

Jignesh, Chena, Ashish, Alpesh Ms. Sweta, Mr. Sunil Nath, Mr. Kashyap, Mr. Basavraj

Vikram Jha , Shalini Verma, Parth Rahevar&

Microsoft

Thank you