Estimation of N2 O emission factors for soils depending on environmental conditions and crop management

J.P. Lesschen G.L. Velthof J. Kros W. de Vries

Outline
Introduction Conceptual framework Factors controlling N2 O emissions Results Validation based on Stehfest and Bouwman data set Conclusions

Introduction

N2 O contributes 7.9% to the global GHG emissions Agriculture is the main source of N2 O and soil emissions account for most of the emissions Soil N2 O emissions often estimated with default IPCC emission factor of 1% of applied N Large variation exists depending on environmental and management factors

Introduction
Variability N2 O emission factors Stehfest and Bouwman data set
0.12

0.10

N2O emission factor

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Sample ID

Objective

To develop a simple N2 O emission factor inference scheme, based on environmental and management factors Validate the approach with the Stehfest and Bouwman data set

Conceptual framework

Emission factor approach differentiated to manure type, soil type, land use, climate, etc. Define reference situation with emission factor of 1% Define changes in emission factor caused by factors

Factor Denitrification N2O/N2 ratio Increasing nitrate content + + Increasing oxygen content + Increasing available organic carbon + Increasing temperature + Decreasing pH +

Reference situation

Starting point is EF for fertilizer of 1% of applied N Two-year monitoring study in Netherlands (Velthof et al., 1996) with the following conditions:

Grassland Well-drained sandy soil Fertilized with calcium ammonium nitrate fertilizer Neutral pH (> 5) Average precipitation (600-900 mm/ year)

Nitrogen input
Sources of nitrogen: Mineral fertilizer: NO3 fertilizer, NH4 fertilizer and urea Manure:

cattle, pig and poultry Manure type: solid or slurry Application technique: surface or injection

Grazing Biological N fixation Crop residues: cereals, vegetables and other crops Atmospheric N deposition Net mineralization of soil organic N

Example: effect of fertilizer type

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Urea Ammonium sulphate Potassium nitrate Ammonium nitrate

N2O emission factor, % of N applied

grassland
Field capacity Submerged

(Pathak and Nedwell, 2001)

Example: manure and application type

4.0 3.5 Grassland Maize land

N2O emission factor

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Cattle manure Cattle manure broadcast shallow injection Pig manure injection Pig manure broadcast

(Velthof and Mosquera, 2010)

Example: crop residues

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
- nitrate N2O-emission, % of crop residue N

Wheat

Maize

Barley

Cabbage

Sprouts

Mustard

Broccoli

Sugar beet

(Velthof et al., NCA 2002)

Calculation rules EF factors for N input

Mineral fertilizer

Grassland: NO3 : NH4 : urea = 2 : 1 : 1 Arable land: NO3 : NH4 : urea = 1.25 : 1 : 1 poultry manure : solid cattle manure : solid pig manure : cattle slurry : pig slurry = 1 : 1 : 1 : 2 : 3 EF for injected or incorporated manure is 1.5 times EF of surfaceapplied manure

Manure

Grazing: EF is 2 times EF of NO3 fertilizer Crop residues: cereals : vegetables : other crops = 0.2% : 2% : 1% (for reference situation)

Oxygen content
Indirect parameters for the effects of oxygen content: Soil type: texture, organic matter and groundwater level Precipitation: precipitation increases risk on anaerobic conditions Land use: in grasslands more organic C and higher oxygen consumption Manure application technique: the depth of application affects oxygen content

Example: effect of soil type

N2O emission, kg N per ha
3.5

Maize

no fertilizer
3.0

NH4NO3 cattle slurry

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

sand

clay

(Van Groenigen et al., Plant & Soil. 2004)

Precipitation

N2O emission factor

Precipitation is an indicator for the risk of anaerobic conditions in soils Several studies find significant relations between precipitation and N2 O EF Linear regression based on Stehfest and Bouwman data set (aggregated to location, n=45) 500 : 750 : 1000 mm = 0.37 : 1 : 1.63

0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 y = 3E-05x - 0.012 2 R = 0.16

0.00 0 500 1000 1500 Precipitation (mm)

Available organic Carbon content

Indirect parameters for the effects of available carbon content: Soil type: peat soils much higher than clay and sand

Sand : Clay : Peat = 1 : 1.5 : 2

Land use: grassland higher EF than arable land for mineral fertilizer but lower for manure Three manure types Three crop residue types

Temperature

Temperature affects activity of nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria and the ratio N2 O/ N2 Lower EF with lower temperature No significant relation found based on Stehfest and Bouwman data set Temperature influence is mainly seasonal related Not included

0.10

0.08

N2O emission factor

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Annual temperature (degrees C) 18

pH
pH affects the activity of nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria with optimum activities at pH 7-8 Calculation rule: in acid soils (pH < 5) N2 O emission factor is 25% lower than in other soils

0.014 n = 330 0.012

N2O emission factor

0.010 0.008 0.006 n = 22 0.004 0.002 0.000 pH < 5 pH > 5

Emission factor inference scheme

Soil type Land use pH Emission factor in % of the N input nitrate ammonium urea pig slurry cattle slurry containing fertilizer low NH3 low NH3 fertilizer application application 0.75 1.00 0.38 0.50 1.13 1.50 0.56 0.75 1.50 2.00 0.75 1.00 0.38 0.50 0.30 0.40 0.56 0.75 0.45 0.60 0.75 1.00 0.60 0.80 0.38 0.50 0.30 0.40 0.56 0.75 0.45 0.60 0.75 1.00 0.60 0.80 0.56 0.75 0.84 1.13 0.84 1.13 1.27 1.69 1.13 1.50 1.69 2.25 0.38 0.50 0.56 0.75 0.56 0.75 0.84 1.13 0.75 1.00 1.13 1.50 poultry manure; low NH3 application 0.19 0.25 0.28 0.38 0.28 0.38 0.42 0.56 0.38 0.50 0.56 0.75

Sand Sand Clay Clay Peat Peat

grassland

<5 >5 arable land < 5 >5 grassland <5 >5 arable land < 5 >5 grassland <5 >5 arable land < 5 >5

Results N2 O soil emissions for Europe

INTEGRATOR: 292 kton N2 O-N IPCC 1% EF: 315 kton N2 O-N

Validation of the approach

Stehfest and Bouwman (2006) data set

Selection agriculture in temperate zones (n = 1137) 352 cases with corrected N2 O EF

Reclassification of dataset according to the factors in the inference framework Addition of annual precipitation for missing cases in Europe Calculation of N2 O emission factor for each case Comparison observed EF with:

Simulated EF (n = 225) IPCC 1% EF Empirical relation of Stehfest and Bouwman (2006): log N2Oemission = sum Ei + A (n = 133)

Validation of N2 O emission factors

Approach n = 225 Simulation IPCC 1% Average difference 0.88 1.06 RMSE 1.59 1.75 Pearson correlation 0.440 ** -

n = 133

Simulation IPCC 1% Stehfest and Bouwman

0.76 0.87 0.91

1.46 1.49 1.59

0.243 ** 0.093

Validation of N2 O emission factors

60 EF observed 50 EF simulated EF Stehfest and Bouwman (2006) 40

Frequency

30

20

10

0 0.25 0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 More

N2O emission factor (%)

Conclusions

The presented approach takes account of environmental and management factors The proposed approach performs better than the IPCC EF and the Stehfest and Bouwman relation Benefits:

Mitigation measures can be better accounted for Regional variation is better expressed The EF inference scheme offers possibility to use a Tier2 approach for reporting N2 O emissions

Thank You!

Wageningen UR