Cs CA Us Rice Cimmyt 2008

8/2/2019 Cs CA Us Rice Cimmyt 2008

1/27

1

Soil Carbon Sequestration:Long-term Effect of Tillage and Rotations

Charles W. Riceand

Karina Fabrizzi

October 28-30, 2008

Kansas State University


2/27

Energy supply

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

< 2 0

< 5 0

< 1 0 0 < 2

0 < 5

0 < 1

0 0

GtCO 2-eq

Transport Bui ld ings Industry Agricul ture Forestry Waste

Non-OECD/EITEITOECD

World total

US$/tCO 2-eq

Global economic mitigation potential fordifferent sectors at different carbon prices

IPCC, 2007


3/27

Agriculture

A large proportion of the mitigation potential of agriculture(excluding bioenergy) arises from soil C sequestration,which has strong synergies with sustainable agriculture andgenerally reduces vulnerability to climate change.

Agricultural practices collectively can make a significantcontribution at low cost

By increasing soil carbon sinks, By reducing GHG emissions, By contributing biomass feedstocks for energy use

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III, 2007


4/27

Agriculture Cropland

Reduced tillage Rotations Cover crops Fertility management Erosion control Irrigation management

Rice paddies

Irrigation Chemical and organic fertilizer Plant residue management

No-till seeding in USA

Rice fields in The

Philippines

Maize / coffee fields inMexico

Agroforestry Improved

managementof trees andcropland


5/27

Agricultural Management Strategiesfor C Sequestration

Enhance C Inputs Reduce C losses Crop Management Tillage

Crop Selection Fallow Management

Crop Rotations

Develop Agricultural Management Programs that:


6/27

Soil Microbial Activity

Soil Organic Matter (C)

CO2

Harvestable Yield

Sunlight

Climate Soils Management


7/27

Potential C sequestration in U.S

Lal et al., 1999, Post et al.,2004

Strategies Management practices Mg C ha -1 yr -1

Decreasing tillage intensity Reduced tillage, no-tillage, mulchtillage 0.24-0.40

Increasing amount of cropresidue return

High residue crops, applicationsof manure and biosolids, erosioncontrol, irrigation, integrated pestmanagement, precisionagriculture

Use of winter cover crops 0.1-0.3

Summer fallow elimination 0.1-0.3Fertilizer management 0.05-0.15

Perennial vegetation CRP 0.3-0.7


8/278

Corn production in NE Kansas

Continuous corn 168 kg N/ha Tillage Systems

No-tillage Conservation tillage (Chisel-disk)

15 year analysis


9/27

Soil C stocks after 18 years

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0-60

30-60

15-30

5-15

0-5NTCT

9

*

*

*

Nicoloso et al., 2008


10/27

Tillage effects on soil organic C bydepth, Minnesota: 14 y continuous corn

Mg C/ha/cmDepth No-till Plow

0.7.5 4.49 3.89 **

7.5-15 4.94 4.66

15-30 3.51 3.17

30-45 2.45 1.48 **

0-45 (Mg/ha) 160 133 **

10Huggins et al., 2007


11/27

E

A

Change in management

Years of cultivation

S O C l e v e l s

( M g

C h a - 1 )

O


12/27

Soil C sequestration rates for 15 years(Mg C/ha/y)

Depth Fertilizer NTilled

Fertilizer NNo-till

Manure NTilled

Manure NNo-till

cm0-5 0.161 0.351 0.393 1.182

0-15 0.254 0.497 0.792 1.4020-30 0.336 0.717 0.839 1.3870-60 0.146 1.325 0.733 1.141

12

NT > Tilled, but tilled had some increase Added C (manure) is less conserved in tilled

What is baseline? Nicoloso et al., 2008


13/27

E

D

C

A Change in management

Years of cultivation

S O C l e v e l s

( M g

C h a - 1 )

O


14/27

Net effect of NT for 15 yearsNT (0-15y) T (0-15y)

Depth No N0.5

Fertilizer N Fertilizer N0.5

Manure N Manure N

cm Mg/ha/y0-5 0.187 0.450 0.190 0.468 0.789

0-15 0.182 0.371 0.243 0.402 0.6100-30 0.174 0.311 0.381 0.417 0.5480-60 -0.443 -0.191 1.179 0.961 0.408

14Nicoloso et al., 2008


15/27

Carbon sequestration rate (C rate) expressed in equivalent mass(Mg C/ha/y) to a 30 cm depth except for Hayes (15 cm)

Location Rotation Duration CT RT NT

Hayes Wheat-Sorg-F 37 y 0.008 0.020 0.055

Parson Sorg-Soy 20 y 0.234 0.370 0.420

Ashland Average 29 y 0.269 0.346 0.384

Tribune Wheat-Sorg-F 15 y -0.570 -0.503 -0.392

15Fabrizzi, 2006


16/273/9/2012

16

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

30 35 40 45 50 55 60

SOC using CT (Mg C ha -1) at 0-30 cm

S O C u s

i n g

N T o r

R T ( M g

C h a -

1 ) a t 0 - 3

0 c m

Ashland RT Ashland NTParsons NT Tribune RTParsons RT Tribune NT

Hays NT Hays RT

SOC NT = 1.14x - 4.90R2 = 0.76

SOC RT =1.08x - 3.14R2 = 0.67

1:1 Line

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): 1.1 for CT to NT West and Post (2002): 1.16 for CT to NT Fabrizzi, 2006


17/27

Carbon sequestration rate (C rate) expressed in equivalent mass(Mg C/ha/y) to a 15 cm depth as a function of N rate (kg N/ha/y)

located Hayes, Kansas, USA

Rotation Duration 0 N 22 N 45 N 67 N

Wheat-Sorg-F 37 y 0.007 0.012 0.035 0.057

17Fabrizzi, 2006


18/27

Carbon sequestration rate (C rate) expressed in equivalent mass(Mg C/ha/y) to a 30 cm depth for Manhattan, KS USA

Rotation

Continuous Soybean 0.066

Continuous Sorghum 0.292

Continuous Wheat 0.487

Soybean - Wheat 0.510

Soybean - Sorghum 0.311

18Fabrizzi, 2006


19/27

Physical Protection

Chemical

Microbial compositionand activity

Substratequality

Plantcharacteristics

H2O

Temperature

ClayBiological

factors

Organics

Clay

Organic C

CO2

O2

Disturbance

Conservation of Soil Carbon

H

i e r a r c

h y o

f i m p o r t a n c e

Mineralogy


20/27

Fungal Role (18:2w6 biomarker) Significant tillage X residue

interaction (p


21/27

Plant C

SOM SOM

CO2 CO2

FungiFungi

Micro-aggregates

No-Till = Lower disturbance

Soil MacroaggregateSoil Macroaggregate

Tillage = Higher disturbance

Plant C

SOM SOM

CO2 CO2

FungiFungi

Micro-aggregates




Plant C

SOM SOM

CO2 CO2

FungiFungi

Micro-aggregates




White and Rice, 2007


22/27

YMollisol = 1.48 SOC - 8.2R2 = 0.9245

YVertisol = 1.56 SOC - 2.83R2 = 0.1292

YOxisol = 0.58 SOC - 6.9

R2

= 0.3344

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

SOC (g C kg -1)

A m o u n

t o

f m a c r o a g g r e g a t e s

( g 1 0 0 g

- 1 s

o i l )

Fabrizzi, 2006


23/27

SoilOrganicCarbon

MicrobialActivity

NutrientCycling

SoilStructure

SoilBiodiversity

WaterErosion

&

Availability

GaseousEmissions

Plant GrowthYield

EnvironmentalServices

Sustainability


24/27

No-Tillage Cropping SystemsConservation Agriculture

Restores soil carbon Conserves moisture Saves fuel Saves labor Lowers machinery costs Reduces erosion

Improved soil fertility Controls weed Planting on the best date Improves wildlife habitat


25/27

Summary Soil C sequestration

Need to examine the system Less disturbance Organic C inputs

No-tillage must be combined with residues Residue removal in no-till may be worst than tillage

with residue

Agricultural soil C sequestration Keeps land in production in some cases In many cases increases profitability for the farmer Provides other environmental benefits to society

Soil and Water quality (less runoff, less erosion) May help adapt to climate change as well as mitigate


26/27

Websiteswww. soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/

K-State Research and Extension

Chuck RicePhone: 785-532-7217

Cell: [email protected]
http://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/http://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/http://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/http://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/


27/27

27

Treatment Scenario Rate(Mg C/ha/y)

State

Eliminatesummerfallow

3-year system4-year systemContinuouscropping

0.0730.1170.229

EasternColorado

NT (corn) NT 150 N Fert 0.80 NEKansas

Rotations CT - NT wheatCT - NT sorghum

CTsorg/NTwheatto NT sorg/wheat

0.7640.605

0.624

SC KS

CRP 0.80 NE

Documents

Cs CA Us Rice Cimmyt 2008