Art. 2 (Eduardo) - Pronto

G Model
AGEE-3824; No. of Pages 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment xxx (2011) xxx-xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agee
Greenhouse gas balance due to the conversion of sugarcane areas from burned to
green harvest in Brazil
Eduardo Barretto De Figueiredo

, Newton La Scala Jr.
1
FCAV/UNESP, Departamento de Cincias Exatas, Via de acesso Prof. Paulo D. Castellane s/n, 14884-900 Jaboticabal, So Paulo, Brazil
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 14 September 2010
Received in revised form 8 February 2011
Accepted 9 February 2011
Available online xxx
Keywords:
Greenhouse gas
Sugarcane
Harvest system
Carbon balance
CO2 emission
1. ntroduction
a b s t r a c t
Strategies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emission in agriculture have been debated for some time,
especially in Brazil, where the agricultural sector is an important contributor to the national emission
balance. The present study focuses on the change in greenhouse gas balance from the conversion of sug-
arcane areas from burned to green harvest, considering both agricultural and mobile sources. The results
are presented in terms of CO2 equivalent, using the gases CO2 , CH4 and N2 O, and indicate that N synthetic
fertilizer and burning of residues are responsible for the higher emissions observed in green and burned
areas, with 1167.6 and 941.0 kg CO2 equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
, respectively. The sugarcane burning plot presented
the highest emissions in our scope, with 3103.9 kg CO2 equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
. Our estimates indicate that con-
version from burned to green plot could save from 310.7 (not considering soil carbon sequestration)
to 1484.0 kg CO2 equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
(considering soil carbon sequestration). The development of ethanol and
sugar production in Brazil should certainly move towards the reduction of burning practice and diesel use,
avoiding some tillage operations and should also adopt more efficient fertilization practices to reduce N
fertilizer inputs, attaining reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the sugarcane agricultural sector.
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
generation, which has an installed capacity of 992 MW, the great
majority of which (952 MW) is located in So Paulo State and uses
The net contribution of the Brazilian sugarcane sector to the
recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is being debated;
this is also related to the renewable energy derived from sug-
arcane plantations (Cerri et al., 2009). According to the Brazilian
National Energetic Balance (2010), ever since flexible fuel vehi-
cles were launched in 2003, these vehicles have come to comprise
87% of the light vehicle fleet in Brazil, resulting in an increase in
ethanol production to 4.6 billion liters in 2010. However, many
changes to enable production systems to comply with national and
international laws and with good practice protocols of production
are underway. Brazil is the world's biggest sugarcane producer,
with an estimated cultivation area of close to 7.5 million hectares,
with 4.1 million hectares distributed mostly in the So Paulo State
(CONAB, 2010). Sugarcane ethanol from Brazil has been indicated
as an alternative to fossil fuels, with an average reduction of green-
house gas emission of 85% in comparison to fossil fuels (Brjesson,
2009). Most recently, electricity generation through biomass has
corresponded to around 8% of Brazilian thermal electrical power
Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 16 3209 2624; fax: +55 16 3202 4275.
E-mail addresses: eduardobfigueiredo@hotmail.com (E.B. De Figueiredo),
lascala@fcav.unesp.br (N. La Scala Jr.).
1
Tel.: +55 16 3209 2624; fax: +55 16 3202 4275.
0167-8809/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.02.014
sugarcane bagasse, a by-product of sugar and ethanol production
(Goldemberg and Lucon, 2007).
Two different sugarcane harvest systems are currently being
practiced in Brazil: burning and the so-called green harvest. Until
the 1940s, most sugarcane areas were harvested manually without
burning, but as the price of labor increased, it became a common
practice to burn off the residue (senescent leaves) before cutting
(De Resende et al., 2006). Since then, sugarcane has been burned in
the field to facilitate manual cutting by removing leaves and insects
(Thorburn et al., 2001) and to optimize crop cutting. n contrast,
most "green cane" in the so-called green harvest is machine-
harvested, without burning, leaving high amounts of residue on
the soil surface. One harvest machine replaces 80-100 workers,
resulting in a vigorous debate on the long-term effects of burning
and its influence on human health due to the aerosol emission and
greenhouse gas emission balance. However, burning practices prior
to green harvest have been phased out, at least in So Paulo State,
because a protocol has been signed to eliminate this practice in
most areas by 2014 (Goldemberg et al., 2008). At present, accord-
ing to the Secretariat of Environment of So Paulo State (2010),
around 55.8% of sugarcane areas in So Paulo State were cropped
using the green harvest system during the 2009/2010 harvest.
Most of the literature regarding the GHG balance and life cycle
of agricultural products emphasizes the need for this kind of study
Please cite this article in press as: De Figueiredo, E.B., La Scala Jr., N., Greenhouse gas balance due to the conversion of sugarcane areas from
burned to green harvest in Brazil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.02.014
G Model
2
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.B. De Figueiredo, N. La Scala Jr. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment xxx (2011) xxx-xxx
of the Brazilian sugarcane sector (Walter et al., 2008). Macedo et al.
(2004, 2008) are among the few studies that have presented results
from GHG emission of sugarcane ethanol produced in Brazil. De
Oliveira et al. (2005) compared the benefits and environmental
impacts of ethanol fuel production from Brazilian sugarcane with
those of corn produced in the USA and points to the importance of
the agricultural practices in contrast with the industrial processes,
because agricultural practices are responsible for around 90% of
total GHG emissions in ethanol production. Despite the fact that
those papers forecast emission scenarios until 2020, when most
burning practices are supposed to end, the agricultural practices in
green versus burned areas and their different GHG sources were
not detailed.
n this manuscript, the annual emission balance takes into
account the major agricultural sources of greenhouse gases (GHG)
in one hectare of burned and green (or mechanized) sugarcane
harvest, aiming to present and discuss the impact of different agri-
cultural management practices. The approach is based on PCC
emission factors (PCC, 2006) which also includes the soil C (car-
bon) sequestration in green-harvest areas and fossil fuel use from
agricultural operations.
2. Materials and methods
Our dataset is based on the mean practices conducted in
the sugarcane areas of Brazil, described in this section, accord-
ing to the mean annual use of supplies (per hectare per year).
We would like to stress that all the supply use is divided so
as to distinguish the two harvest systems: burned and green
harvest.
2.1. Database and methodology
The sources of GHG emission considered (Table 1) were asso-
ciated with the following agricultural practices: (a) sugarcane
residue burning; (b) N2O direct and indirect emissions from N
synthetic fertilizer applied to soil, including the emissions from
its manufacture and distribution (Macedo et al., 2008); organic
composts such as vinasse and filtercake application; and residues
left on soils after green harvest; (c) lime application and its pro-
duction; and (d) emission that results from fossil fuel use, i.e.,
diesel consumption by the agricultural fleet, also including emis-
sion from the manufacture and distribution of diesel. Emissions of
the total diesel used were calculated for agricultural operations,
including the transport of sugarcane to the mill. Crop residues
left on the soil surface and potential soil carbon sequestration
were also considered in green-harvest plots, according to mea-
sured data (Feller, 2001). Table 1 summarizes the sectors and
practices included in our work, as well as the main agricultural
sources of GHG emissions adopted for each of the harvest sys-
tems.
PCC (2006) methodologies from the Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas nventories were applied to calculate the GHG
emission in one hectare of burned and green mechanized harvest
plots (equations, PCC, 2006). n addition, data from the Pro-
vision National Company (CONAB, 2010) were applied. Table 2
presents the supplies of the agricultural sector considered in each
hectare, distinguishing burned from green-harvest systems. Sim-
ilarly, Table 3 presents the specific agricultural operations and
diesel consumption in each agricultural operation conducted in
both plots (adapted from Macedo et al., 2004). All emission values
were converted to CO2 equivalent (CO2equiv.) following the indi-
vidual global warming potentials for a period of 100 years, using 1
for CO2, 21 for CH4 and 310 for N2O (PCC, 2007).
2.2. Sugarcane yield
The sugarcane yield depends on many factors, including crop
variety, climate, soil fertility and the amount of fertilizer applied,
among others. An annual fresh sugarcane stalk production of
81 t ha
~1
(CONAB, 2010) was considered. The annual ethanol pro-
ductivity considered was 85 L t
~1
of sugarcane, corresponding to
6885 L ha
~1
y
~1
, which is the equivalent to a mean sugar produc-
tion of 169 kg t
~1
of sugarcane stalk processed in mill, or 14,365 kg of
sugar ha
~1
y
~1
(Vian et al., 2008).
2.3. Direct and indirect N2O emissions from managed soils
According to updated estimates of GHG emissions for the Brazil-
ian territory, agricultural soils represented more than 95% of the
Brazilian N2O emission in the period of 2000-2005, which includes
soil fertilization and other emission sources such as grazing ani-
mals, animal manure produced off-field, biological fixation and
crop residue (Cerri et al., 2009); however, the majority of this is due
to N2O emitted from N fertilizers and crop residue N only (Prinn,
2004).
Soil N2O flux can strongly influence the extent to which bio-
fuels decrease their GHG emission relative to fossil fuels (Adler et
al., 2007; Crutzen et al., 2008). Soil microbial activity is the major
source of soil N2O flux (Firestone and Davidson, 1989), because: (i)
mineralized N can be nitrified by soil microorganisms converting
soil ammonium (NH4+) to nitrate (NO3~) under aerobic condi-
tions, with N2O emitted as a by-product of the transformation; (ii)
anaerobic denitrifiers can sequentially reduce nitrogen oxides (e.g.,
NO3~) to nitric oxide (NO), N2O and finally N2, with incomplete
reduction resulting in N2O emissions; and (iii) nitrifier denitrifi-
cation, reduction of NO2~ to N2 via N2O, which may also be a
significant source of N2O (Wrage et al., 2005).
n the revised guidelines for greenhouse gas inventories (PCC,
2006), nitrogen fertilizer, organic residues and the release of N
by mineralization of soil organic matter as a result of land use
change or management were considered the three direct sources
of N2O from soils of agricultural areas. According to PCC (2006),
an emission factor of 1% should be applied to the amount of N
made available in the soil coming from any of the three sources.
To verify whether this emission factor is generally valid for a spe-
cific region, it is obvious that crop yield should be close to local
averages and management parameters such as N fertilizer use, as
well as residue N production and any other effects that stimulate
soil N mineralization, should be consistent (Jantalia et al., 2008).
Countries that have no information on GHG emissions normally
consider the Guidelines for National Greenhouse nventories (PCC,
2006), which, for N2O, allow emission estimation from data of total N
in crop residues returned to soils and amounts of N fertilizer
applied to the crops (Jantalia et al., 2008).
To calculate N2O emissions from the conversion of sugarcane
burning to green harvest we adopted the PCC (2006) emission fac-
tor (EF) of 1% for direct emissions from N synthetic fertilizer applied
to the soil, organic fertilizer (vinasse and filtercake) and N content
from residues that returned to soil. For indirect N2O emissions, an
EF of 1% and fraction of N volatilized of 10% of N from synthetic
fertilizer and 20% from organic fertilizers were applied. To account
for N2O emission from leaching and runoff of these three sources
we used the fraction leached as 30% and EF 0.75% (PCC, 2006).
2.4. Synthetic N fertilizer
Fertilizers serve as both direct and indirect sources of N2O (and
NO) emission, by means of deposition of volatilized ammonia on
natural ecosystems and denitrification of leached nitrate in subsoil,
surface water, groundwater and sediments (Cole et al., 1996). Syn-
G Model
Table 1
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.B. De Figueiredo, N. La Scala Jr. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment xxx (2011) xxx-xxx 3
Emission sources and greenhouse gas considered in each of the practices conducted in sugarcane agricultural and mobile combustion sectors.
Sector Emission sources for burning and green harvest system
Agricultural GHG emissions due to the burning of the agricultural residues
CH4
N2 O
N2 O direct and indirect emissions from managed soils
N synthetic fertilizer
N from organic composts (filtercake and vinasse) N
from sugarcane residues
CO2 emissions due lime application Soil
carbon sequestration
Mobile combustion (diesel vehicle) Emissions due fossil fuel use (diesel oil)
CO2
CH4
N2 O
Table 2
Annual amount of agricultural supplies applied and fossil fuel consumption (medium values for a 5 years crop cycle) for each harvest system in 1 ha to burning harvest and green harvest.
Supplies Burning harvest Green harvest
Units Amount Units Amount
Nitrogen synthetic fertilizer kg ha
~1
y
~1
88 kg ha
~1
y
~1
112
Vinasse application kg N ha
~1
y
~1
44.2 kg N ha
~1
y
~1
44.2
Filtercake application kg N ha
~1
y
~1
21 kg N ha
~1
y
~1
21
Lime kg ha
~1
y
~1
400 kg ha
~1
y
~1
400
Diesel oil L ha
~1
y
~1
147.68 L ha
~1
y
~1
223.82
thetic nitrogen fertilizer is currently applied to promote increases
in sugarcane yield. N fertilization is around 30% higher in sugarcane
green-harvested areas than in the burned areas due to N immobi-
lization in the first years of green harvest conversion (Trivellin and
Vitti, 2002).
Table 3
During planting seasons for both of the harvest systems consid-
ered, 40 kg N ha
~1
(ammonium sulfate source) is normally applied,
and during the subsequent ratoon cycles (considered here as 4
years in a row), around 100 kg N ha
~1
is usually applied each year
(Trivellin and Vitti, 2002); this would result in 88 kg N ha
~1
y
~1
in a
Diesel oil consumption for each agricultural operation in the burning harvest system and green harvest (L ha
~1
).
Green harvest Burning harvest
Operation L ha
~1
Operation L ha
~1
Planting
Lime application 3.73 Lime application 3.73
Ratoon mechanical destruction 11.09 Ratoon mechanical destruction 11.09
Ratoon chemical destruction 1.6 Ratoon chemical destruction 1.6
Heavy plow 21.23 Heavy plow 21.23
Subsoil tillage 26.00 Subsoil 26.00
Medium plow 20.24 Medium plow 20.24
Equalize plow 9.38 Equalize plow 9.38
Groove overture 13.64 Groove overture 13.64
Seed distribution 6.67 Seed distribution 6.67
Groove closing 2.67 Groove closing 2.67
Herbicides application 1.60 Herbicides application 1.60
Planting systematizing 6.15 Planting systematizing 6.15
Total (1) 124.20 124.20
Ratoon treatment
Trash heap 2.67 Trash heap -
Fertilization 7.08 Fertilization 7.08
Herbicide application 1.60 Herbicide application 1.60
Total (2) 11.35 8.68
Harvest equipment
Harvester 74.00 Harvester 0.00
Burden machine 12.70 Burden machine 12.70
Towrope operation 21.20 Towrope operation 21.20
Sugarcane transport 82.00 Sugarcane transport 82.00
Total (3) 189.90 115.90
Mean annual consumption (L ha
~1
) 223.82 147.68
Adapted from Macedo et al. (2004).
G Model
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
5-year cycle in burned plots. On the other hand, for areas with green
harvest, around 30% more N is applied during ratoon, 130 kg N ha
~1
,
but the same is applied at planting (40 kg N ha
~1
), resulting in an
average input of 112 kg N ha
~1
y
~1
. Emissions related to the N syn-
thetic fertilizer production and distribution phase were computed
as described in the literature, 3.97 kg CO2 kg N
~1
(Macedo et al.,
2008).
2.5. Organic composts
Emission from organic composts in sugarcane crops were
associated with filtercake and vinasse applications. These are sub-
products of sugar and ethanol production. Vinasses are liquids
whose dry matter content ranges from around 4% (diluted vinasse)
to 50% (concentrated vinasse) (Doelsch et al., 2009). Depending on
the application dosages, vinasse could result in positive (increasing
soil organic carbon, soil bulk density and crop yields) or negative
impacts on the environment (Tejada and Gonzalez, 2005). For each
liter of ethanol produced in the distilleries, 12-14 L of vinasse are
generated; thus, in one cropped sugarcane hectare, considering
the yield of 81 t of sugarcane ha
~1
, we can have 82,620-96,390 L
of vinasse per hectare. n our calculation, vinasse N content was
considered to be 0.368 kg N m
~3
, with a rate of application of
120 m
3
ha
~1
, resulting in an average input of 44.16 kg N ha
~1
y
~1
.
n a recent experiment conducted in sugarcane areas of Rio
de Janeiro State, Brazil, with a high precipitation level, an emis-
sions factor due to the vinasse application was derived that was
being lower than PCC (1%) (Ronquim, 2007). However, in this work,
emission factors higher than and equal to the ones recommended
by PCC (2006) were used: 0.01 for direct N2O emission, 0.01 for
indirect N2O emission (volatilization) and 0.0075 for leaching and
runoff.
Each ton of sugarcane processed produces from 18 to 30 kg of
filtercake, another sub-product of the industrial process. The N
content of the filtercake was based on 25% of its dry mass and
considered to be 1.4% of N. Filtercake is incorporated at planting
at a rate from 10 t ha
~1
(Soares et al., 2009) to 100 t ha
~1
(Galdos et
al., 2009). n this study, 30 t ha
~1
; with 75% of moisture, was con-
sidered. This is usually applied on soils during replanting seasons,
which would result in a rate of 21 kg N ha
~1
y
~1
, when considering
one replanting operation per 5 years.
2.6. N2O from sugarcane crop residue
The conversion of sugarcane from burning to green harvest
impacts soil properties and the dynamics of GHG in different ways.
This is also related to the increase in the amount of sugarcane
residue deposited on the soil surface as a mulch after machine har-
vest. n addition, the effects of sugarcane residue maintenance on
the soil surface have been studied with a focus on root growth (Ball-
Coelho et al., 1992), soil nitrogen dynamics (Meier et al., 2006), soil
erosion (Sparovek and Schung, 2001), soil temperature, water con-
tent (Dourado Neto et al., 1999), soil bulk density (Tominaga et al.,
2002), soil aggregate stability (Graham et al., 2002) and soil car-
bon sequestration (Cerri et al., 2004; De Resende et al., 2006). t is
well-documented that trash-mulched management contributes to
increases in soil organic matter (SOM) levels (Vallis et al., 1996). The
carbon content in above-ground sugarcane biomass was assumed
to be 44% of dry matter (Spain and Hodgen, 1994; Robertson and
Thorburn, 2007).
Nevertheless, short-term peaks in N2O emissions have been
observed after crop residues return to the soil (Baggs et al., 2000;
Millar et al., 2004). The magnitude of such emissions, however, is
dependent on the chemical composition and the quantity of plant
residues added to soil (Aulakh et al., 2001). The N and lignin con-
tents in plant residues are important variables that determine the N
mineralization kinetics in soil (Constantinides and Fownes, 1994),
affecting soil N2O emission. Hence, soil N2O emissions due to the
addition of crop residues on the soil surface tend to be greater when the
added residues have low C:N ratios (Huang et al., 2004).
The conversion of sugarcane plots from burned to green harvest
results in high inputs of residues on soil surface varying from 12.5
to 24.9 t ha
~1
(dry mass) (Ronquim, 2007). The C:N ratio of sugar-
cane residue is usually superior to 100 having an N content from 40
to 100 kg ha
~1
(Trivelin et al., 1995, 1996; Cantarella, 1998). At this
high C:N ratio, an intense immobilization of N on soil is expected
(Smith and Douglas, 1971; Siqueira and Franco, 1988). Once again,
considering the sugarcane yield to be 81 t ha
~1
, and a mean value
of above-ground residues to be 15 t (dry mass) ha
~1
, the N con-
tent from sugarcane residues deposited on soil after green harvest
would be close to 60.0 kg N ha
~1
y
~1
, so this value was considered
in our calculation.
n experiments conducted in the State of So Paulo, Oliveira et al.
(1999) have shown that the release of N from sugarcane residues
was 20%, similar to the value found by Vitti (2003), which was 26%.
The N present in sugarcane residues follows a slow decay rate once
deposited on soil, varying from 3% to 30% in 1 year (Basanta et al.,
2002; Oliveira et al., 2002). According to these studies, we can bet-
ter infer that the N content from sugarcane trash remainders on
fields in a period of 1 year is not fully available for nitrification or
denitrification in soil.
Hence, we considered that only 20% of sugarcane trash mass was
reduced or mineralized during a period of 1 year (Oliveira et al.,
2002), and not all N present in residues would be available for min-
eralization on soil (Oliveira et al., 1999). Here, we sustain that we
cannot consider that all N content in sugarcane residue is converted
into N2O emissions in a period of 1 year, and thus the N amount
available on soil for nitrification and denitrification and used to
calculate N2O emission from sugarcane residues was inferred as
being 20% of N from residues (60 kg ha
~1
), resulting in a rate of
12 kg N ha
~1
y
~1
in green areas.
2.7. Burning of sugarcane residues
The burning of sugarcane residues releases CO2 but also
releases other GHG or GHG precursors, including carbon monox-
ide (CO), methane (CH4), non-methane volatile organic compounds
(NMVOC) and nitrogen (N2O, NOx) species (Levine, 2000). t is
usually only in the cropland and grassland areas that non-CO2 emis-
sions are considered for inventories, due to the assumption that
emission is counterbalanced by CO2 removal by the subsequent
vegetation re-growth within a 1-year period (PCC, 2006). The same
applies to CO, as this is rapidly converted to CO2 once in the atmo-
sphere (PCC, 2006). Sugarcane crop burning is responsible for 98%
of the emissions from agricultural residue burning in Brazil (Lima
et al., 1999). As a direct consequence of the recent expansion of sug-
arcane areas in Brazil, sugarcane cultivation has replaced pasture
and other agricultural areas in similar proportions and, despite the
considerable increase in mechanical harvesting, manual labor com-
bined with burned harvest is still widely practiced (Rudorff et al.,
2010).
The methodology used in this work to account for GHG emission
from the burning of sugarcane residues was the same suggested by
PCC (2006, Chapter 2, Generic Methodologies Applicable to
Multiple Land-Use Categories). The emission factors used were 2.7
and 0.07 for CH4 and N2O (all values in g kg
~1
burnt dry matter),
respectively (Andrea and Merlet, 2001).
The GHG emission due to sugarcane burning depends on the
amount of residue available and sugarcane yield. n So Paulo State,
for most sugarcane varieties, results show amounts varying from
67.3 t ha
~1
to 125.9 t ha
~1
of fresh sugarcane stalks with a residue
production varying from 12.5 t ha
~1
to 24.9 t ha
~1
of dry matter
G Model
AGEE-3824; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
(Ronquim, 2007). For instance, in our calculation we used the mean
sugarcane yield of 81 t ha
~1
and residue yield of 15 t ha
~1
, giving a
ratio of sugarcane/residue yield of 0.1852.
n this study, we considered CH4 and N2O gases only as net GHG
emissions due to sugarcane residue burning.
2.8. CO2 emissions due to lime application
Lime is currently applied in sugarcane areas, in both harvest
systems, in an amount that is dependent on soil pH (hydrogenionic
potential) and it is used to raise soil pH to 5.5-6.5 and sum of bases to
around 60%, improving plant growth. Calcic limeste (CaCO3) or
dolomite CaMg(CO3)2 is normally used, leading to CO2 emissions
as the carbonate lime dissolves and releases bicarbonate (2HCO3~),
which evolves into CO2 and water (H2O) (PCC, 2006).
After 5 years of conversion from burned to green harvest, the
soil pH had not changed significantly (Mendonc aetal.,2000),and
the same was observed for V% (sum of bases), Ca (calcium) and Mg
(magnesium).
n this manuscript, we adopted an average of 2 t of dolomite ha
~1
applied during replanting season for a growth cycle of 5 years, with
a dosage of 400 kg ha
~1
y
~1
. The emission factor was thus consid-
ered to be 0.13 t of CO2 per t of dolomite applied (PCC, 2006), and
0.01 kg CO2equiv. kg
~1
source associated with energy demand from
production (Macedo et al., 2008).
2.9. Emissions from mobile combustion sources and machinery
Fossil fuel used in sugarcane crop systems is normally diesel
oil for agricultural machinery, tractors and trucks and ethanol for
the administrative vehicles. n our manuscript we considered the
emissions related to data for diesel processing, extraction, trans-
portation and consumption during planting season and related to
ratoon crop maintenance and harvest operations until the sugar-
cane was transported to the mill, taking into account the differences
between the consumption in burning and green-harvested plots
(adapted from Macedo et al., 2004) (Table 3). Hence, emissions
referring to the extraction and distribution were considered to be
3.87 g C MJ
~1
of fuel L
~1
(Macedo et al., 2008).
The estimations of the GHG emission related to fossil fuel use
in this study considered CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions according
to PCC (2006, Chapter 3, Mobile Combustion). Emission factors
applied were also suggested by PROCONVE (Air Control Program
by Auto Motor Vehicle Pollution)/CETESB-Brazil in association with
BAMA (Brazilian nstitute of Environment), considering types of
fuel and vehicles. For these, CO2, CH4 and N2O emission factors were
considered as off-road source and machinery, 74,100 kg CO2 TJ
~1
,
4.15 kg CH4 TJ
~1
and 28.6 kg N2O TJ
~1
respectively (PCC, 2006).
The methodology takes into account data for diesel consump-
tion in a 5-year cycle, 1 year for the sugarcane planting season and
another 4 years for ratoon maintenance, distinguishing the opera-
tions and consumption of both harvest systems (Table 3).
The operations considered the diesel consumption for the
first year of the crop cycle (planting) as being 124.2 L ha
~1
for
both harvest systems and an average of the subsequent ratoon
crop consumption as being 11.35 L ha
~1
for green harvest and
8.68 s ha
~1
for burned harvest (Table 3). The mean diesel consump-
tion applied to the calculations was 223.8 and 147.7 L ha
~1
y
~1
for
green and burned plots, respectively. To determine the diesel emis-
sion factors, the diesel density of 852 g L
~1
was used, with specific
consumption being 195 g kWh
~1
(from Brazilian fuel classification).
2.10. Soil carbon sequestration
The conversion of native ecosystems to agriculture almost
invariably results in a net soil C loss (Davidson and Ackermann,
1993). Hence, agricultural soils are now relatively C-depleted, rep-
resenting a potential CO2 sink if part of the lost carbon were to be
restored (Paustian et al., 1997). Soil C sequestration is defined as
occurring when any persistent net increase in organic C storage takes
place (Paustian et al., 1997).
Carbon sequestration involves transferring atmospheric CO2 into
long-lived soil storage forms, so it is not immediately re-
emitted. This strategy is cost-effective and environmentally
friendly, because this is mostly related to the change of manage-
ment systems (Lal, 2004). Galdos et al. (2009), studying soil carbon
stocks in burned and unburned sugarcane areas, showed that the
unburned management system presents higher contents of total
carbon (30% higher), microbial biomass carbon, and particulate
organic matter carbon, compared to the burned area.
Applying values of 42% of C content to the residue dry mat-
ter base (Trivelin et al., 1995), and considering a residue yield
of 10,000-30,000 kg ha
~1
; 4200-12,600 kg C ha
~1
are deposited on
the soil surface as a C input in green-harvested plots every year. n
contrast, when sugarcane crop is burnt, most of the organic matter
and nutrients in the trash are lost. Mitchell et al. (2000) measured
losses of 70-95% of dry matter, nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus,
magnesium, calcium, and sulfur after sugarcane burning.
Therefore, it is assumed here that maintaining sugarcane crop
residues on the soil surface (around 15 t DM ha
~1
y
~1
), instead of
burning it, would result in soil carbon accumulation (De Resende
et al., 2006).
3. Results and discussion
Fig. 1 presents the estimates of GHG emission (in kg CO2 equiv-
alent per hectare per year) for each agricultural emission source,
considering 1 ha converted from burned to green harvest. Our
estimations (also in Table 4) indicate that emissions due to the
synthetic nitrogen fertilizer used in green areas are around 27%
higher than in burned areas, with 1167.6 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
and
917.4 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
, respectively. As sugarcane residues
present a C:N ratio of about 100 and intense N immobilization
in soil, little N mineralization and low N availability are expected
from residues in green-harvested areas as compared to burned
areas (Vitti and Mazza, 2002). Therefore, green-harvested areas
demand higher amounts of N, especially during the first years of
green harvest system adoption (Cantarella, 1998). However, long-
term studies have indicated that post-harvest residue retention
increases the amount of readily decomposable organic matter in
the top 10 cm of soil (>15 years of green harvest adoption) which
can result in a decrease in fertilizer inputs (Graham et al., 2002;
Robertson and Thorburn, 2007).
Typically, in green-harvested areas, 1.3 kg N ha
~1
of synthetic
fertilizer are applied to soil, usually as NH4NO3 or (NH4)2SO4
(ammonium nitrate or ammonium sulfate), for each ton of sug-
arcane expected to be cropped (Vitti and Mazza, 2002). On the
other hand, according to De Figueiredo et al. (2010), each kilo-
gram of N synthetic fertilizer used, calculating direct and indirect
emissions only, resulted in 6.45 kg CO2equiv. emitted as N2O from
this source due to the application on field. Our estimations indi-
cate that an application of 112 kg N ha
~1
to sugarcane fields results
in an emission of 722.9 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
from field fertil-
ization and 444.7 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
due to the manufacture
and distribution, totaling 1167.6 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
in green-
harvested areas. For instance, in a scenario where N fertilizer use
would be 30% lower than the usual practiced for higher yields
in green-harvest areas, the avoided emission would be close to
~1
y
~1
. Some studies conducted in Australian
sugarcane areas indicate that an immediate reduction of N2O emis-
sion could be achieved by avoiding high levels of soil mineral N
S
o
u
r
c
e
G Model
6
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Burned harvest Green harvest
Synthetic Fertilizer
Vinasse
Filter Cake
Harvest Residues
Residues Burning
Liming
Diesel
2,793
Sub-Total:
3,104
C sequestration
1,173
Total:
1,620
3,104
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
CO2eq emission (kg ha
-1
y
-1
)
Fig. 1.
Estimation of GHG emission (in kg CO2 equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
) due to each agricultural emission source considering 1 ha conducted with burn and green harvests.
pools and water logging, controlling fertilizer rates and frequency of
application (Allen et al., 2010).
The organic wastewater stream from alcohol production, known
as vinasse, and emissions from filtercake mud applied as organic
fertilizer to soils, at a rate of 120 m
3
ha
~1
and 30 t ha
~1
respectively
according to our methodology, were responsible for emission of
306.55 and 145.78 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
, in both harvest systems.
Macedo et al. (2008) estimated an emission factor of
~1
source from filtercake, consider-
ing an N content of 12.5 kg t
~1
, and an emission factor of
~1
source for vinasse with nitrogen con-
tent of 0.36 kg m
~3
, while we used a base of 14 kg N t
~1
of filtercake
and 0.37 kg N m
~3
of vinasse. The uncertainty of emission from this
source is also due to the differences in filtercake mud moisture and
its N content, pointing to the need to analyze the moisture and N
contents from each vinasse and filtercake portion. The amount of
nitrogen available for nitrous oxide formation would be reduced
by improved fertilization strategies, such as more precise nitrogen
application during the cropping season (Brjesson, 2009).
When sugarcane areas are converted from burning to green
harvest, the GHG emission balance is moved to different sources
Table 4
of N2O, resulting from mineralization of residue kept on the soil
surface. Usually, in green-harvest areas, the soil is completely
covered for most of the period until the next harvest. Sugar-
cane residue degrades slowly, due to its high C:N ratio, and the
N available for a 1-year period is also dependent on residue
mineralization (Oliveira et al., 2002). Considering that 20% of
green harvest residue is mineralized within a period of 1 year,
around 12 kg N ha
~1
y
~1
are returned to soils, resulting in an
emission of 71.61 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
, or an emissions factor of
~1
source, in N2O form, including direct and
indirect emissions. Hence, we can expect that not all N content from
residues is mineralized and available for the nitrification and
denitrification process in a 1-year period.
Macedo et al. (2008) presented an emissions factor of
~1
source for unburned trash, considering
0.5% to be the N content in residue and 1.225% of N in the residue
to be converted in N2O. Applying this emissions factor, we have
15,000 kg of residue resulting in 75 kg of N and an emission of
420 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
, a value much higher than was found in the
present study, probably due to the fact that these authors consid-
ered all N content in the trash to be available and converted in
Greenhouse gas balance from green and burning harvest system for each source, including estimations to the soil carbon sequestration and emissions from manufacture and
distribution for N synthetic fertilizer and diesel, results in CO2 equiv. considering a crop cycle of 5 years.
Sources
Green harvest emissions (kg CO2 equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
) Burning harvest emissions (kg CO2 equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
)
N synthetic fertilizers 1167.6 917.4
Vinasse 306.6 306.6
Filtercake 145.8 145.8
N2 O emissions from harvest residues
71.6
Sugarcane residues burning 941.0
Lime 194.7 194.7
Diesel oil 906.9 598.4
Sub-total 2793.1 3103.9
Soil carbon sequestration
Green harvest sequestration (kg CO2 equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
)
Soil (320 kg C ha
~1
y
~1
) 1173.3
Total (kg CO2 equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
)
1619.8 3103.9
G Model
N2O in a period of 1 year, although these authors do highlight that
this value is not necessarily realistic for sugarcane biomass. Here,
we suppose that not all N from residue will be mineralized and
converted in N2O in a period of 1 year.
The PCC (2006) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas nven-
tories, Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use, Chapter
2, for sugarcane, a dry matter yield of 6.5 t ha
~1
(Table 2.4). Based on
an extended review of Brazilian sugarcane fields (Ronquim, 2007),
we used a mean value for residue yield of 15 t of dry mass ha
~1
y
~1
with the combustion factor having a burning efficiency of 0.80
(proportion of fuel biomass consumed). Emission from this source
(burned area) was calculated as being 941 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
,
resulting in an emissions factor of 0.0627 kg CO2equiv. kg
~1
source
for both CH4 and N2O. The results showed that for CH4, an
emissions factor of 0.0454 kg CO2equiv. kg
~1
source could be
applied and for N2O, 0.0174 kg CO2equiv. kg
~1
source. Applying
the same methodologies, PCC (2006), Macedo et al. (2008) pre-
sented emission factors from the burning of sugarcane trash
before harvest as being 0.021 kg CO2equiv. kg
~1
source for N2O
and 0.062 kg CO2equiv. kg
~1
source for CH4, resulting in an emis-
sion of 1245 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
from burning residue. The practice
of sugarcane burning prior to harvest has shown to be the sec-
tor with the highest impact when GHG emission is considered in
burned areas, with this source corresponding to 30% of its total
emission.
Normally, dolomite or limestone is applied to sugarcane
areas, in a variable dosage of around 2000 kg ha
~1
during the
planting season, for a 5-year cycle. Our results have shown
an emission of 190.7 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
from field applica-
tion and plus 4 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
from production, totaling
~1
y
~1
. Other authors have used the emis-
sions factor of CO2 from this source as 0.477 kg CO2equiv. kg
~1
source (Macedo et al., 2008; Seabra and Macedo, 2008). Country-
specific emission factors could also account for the proportion of
carbonate-C from liming that is emitted into the atmosphere as
CO2 (PCC, 2006).
Emissions due to fossil fuel use, including extraction and trans-
portation, accounted for 906.9 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
in green areas,
considering CO2, CH4 and N2O, and medium consumption of
223.82 L ha
~1
y
~1
for a 5-year crop cycle. Hence, in the case of
green-harvested areas the use of diesel in machinery was the sector
that caused the second highest percentage of GHG emission, corre-
sponding to 32.5% of its total emission. The burned-harvest system
accounted for an emission of 598.4 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
from
this source, with a mean diesel consumption of 147.68 L ha
~1
y
~1
.
The higher emission for the green-harvest system is due to the
higher consumption of diesel, principally in the harvest operation
(mechanical harvester) with a mean consumption considered here
as 74 L ha
~1
y
~1
, a value greater than that of the burned harvest,
maintaining the same amount of diesel consumed for the planting
operation in both harvest systems.
Consumption of fossil fuels in the agricultural stage corresponds to
the use of diesel in agricultural devices and trucks (Walter et al.,
2008). De Oliveira et al. (2005) assumed a diesel consumption of
600 L ha
~1
, while Macedo et al. (2008) presented diesel consump-
tion equal to 164 L ha
~1
.
n a scenario where the replanting season for green areas could
be done with "minimum growth" or where some tillage operations
such as mechanical elimination of ratoon and heavy harrow oper-
ations could be avoided, the use of fossil fuels could be diminished.
This could reduce the GHG emissions from this source by around 6%
in green areas, resulting in a consumption of 209.26 L ha
~1
y
~1
and an
emission of 847.91 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
. More fuel-efficient
tractors, as well as more efficient cultivation and manufacture
of fertilizers, can reduce emissions of carbon dioxide per ton of
biomass, perhaps by up to 20% (Brjesson, 2009).
The sugarcane burning harvest system presented the highest
emissions, considering direct and indirect emissions due to agri-
cultural practices (Fig. 1), with 2793 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
,
10% higher than green-harvest areas, which emitted
3104 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
. Considering a scenario with 87%
of the total area managed with burning practice and 13% with
green harvest, De Figueiredo et al. (2010) found a mean GHG
emission from sugarcane areas of 2406 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
. De
Oliveira et al. (2005), also based on inventory studies, presented
a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission from the manufacture and dis-
tribution of agricultural constituents used as inputs for Brazilian
sugarcane production of 2268 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
. Macedo et al.
(2008), by assuming 81 t of sugarcane produced per hectare per
year, found a total GHG emission of 1579.5 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
,
which is comparable to our result obtained in green plots.
According to our estimations, the sources that most impacted
the GHG emission in green-harvested areas were synthetic fer-
tilizer and diesel, corresponding to 42 and 33% of total emission,
respectively. On the other hand, in burned areas the higher
emissions would come from residue burning and synthetic
fertilizer application, with 30.3 and 29.6%, respectively, from
these sources. Our results indicate an emission reduction of
~1
y
~1
in the first years of conversion from
burned to green areas without computing soil carbon sequestra-
tion.
Nevertheless, when sugarcane areas are converted from a burn-
ing harvest system to green harvest, the harvest operation is
associated with the maintenance of large amount of crop residues
on soil surface. This practice enables the return of crop residues
to the soil and favors soil organic matter accumulation (Thorburn
et al., 2001; Luca, 2002), probably due to reduction in gas emission
when compared to the burning system (Andrea and Merlet, 2001).
Luca (2002) reported increases ranging from 2 to 3.1 and 4.8 to
7.8 t C ha
~1
for the top 5 cm and 40 cm layers, respectively, during
the first 4 years following non-burning. Galdos et al. (2009), after 8
years of green harvest conversion without replanting, reported an
annual increase rate of 1.2 t C ha
~1
in the first 20 cm depth between
burned and unburned sugarcane areas. n the work of Martinelli
et al. (2010), authors estimated an increase in soil carbon stocks
with data published by Galdos et al. (2009), comparing burned
and green sugarcane harvest systems which present an emission
reduction, in terms of soil carbon sequestration, that is equivalent
to 836.7 kg CO2 ha
~1
y
~1
for southern Brazil. n contrast, La Scala
et al. (2006, 2008) demonstrated that, in a short-term period of a
few weeks after tillage, the soil carbon losses in terms of CO2 emis-
sion could be as high as the annual sequestration rates reported
in sugarcane areas. Therefore, here we highlight the importance of
considering soil tillage during replanting periods to better under-
stand the soil carbon balance and the potential increase in soil
carbon stocks in sugarcane areas.
The modest estimations of C sequestration in soil, based on
field studies, have shown mean annual C accumulation in a 12-
year period to be 0.32 t C ha
~1
y
~1
in the first 20 cm of depth (Feller,
2001; Cerri et al., 2009), when also taking replanting operations
into consideration. This represents 1,173 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
sequestered from the atmosphere due to the green-harvest sys-
tem adoption. Our total emission is also presented in Fig. 1,
taking the soil carbon sequestration into account. n this case,
the total emission from green-harvest areas drops from 2793 to
1620 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
. Data obtained from the Secretariat of
Environment of So Paulo State (2010) showed that, in the har-
vest period of 2009/2010, around 44.2% of sugarcane areas of
this state were harvested with burning practice, a total area of
1.825 million hectares. Therefore, according to this scenario and
our work, the emission reduction was 1484 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
due to the conversion of sugarcane from burning to green har-
G Model
8
ARTICLE IN PRESS
vest. n So Paulo State alone, it would be possible to save close to
2.71 Mt CO2equiv. y
~1
if all burnings were eliminated and sugar-
cane was harvested by green management.
4. Conclusions
Applying the typical practices in sugarcane areas of Brazil, the
estimates of total GHG emissions for each hectare were 2793
and 3104 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
for burning and green-harvest
systems, respectively, without considering soil carbon seques-
tration. Hence, the simple conversion from burning to green
harvest would save around 310.7 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
. n addi-
tion, by considering a net soil carbon sequestration of around
320 kg ha
~1
y
~1
in green areas, the conversion of the burning har-
vest system to green harvest would avoid an emission equivalent
of 1484.0 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
y
~1
. This research indicated that, in
green-harvested areas, 1619.8 kg CO2equiv. ha
~1
are emitted into
the atmosphere each year, mainly due to fertilization and diesel use,
considering modest soil carbon sequestration. The results from this
study will contribute to improvement in accounting for greenhouse
gases from sugarcane areas in Brazil. The development of ethanol
and sugar production in Brazil should certainly move towards the
reduction of burning practice and diesel use, as well as avoiding
some tillage operations, in burned and green-harvested areas and
should also adopt more efficient fertilization practices to reduce N
fertilizer inputs, attaining reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
from the sugarcane agricultural sector.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Fundac o de Amparo Pesquisa do Estado de
So Paulo (FAPESP), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cien-
tfico e Tecnolgico (CNPq) and Coordena o de Aperfeic oamento
de Pessoal de Nvel Superior (CAPES) for support.
References
Adler, P.R., Del Grosso, S.J., Parton, W.J., 2007. Life-cycle assessment of net
greenhouse-gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecol. Appl. 17, 675-691.
Allen, D.E., Kingston, G., Rennenberg, H., Dalal, R.C., Schmidt, S., 2010. Effect of nitro-
gen fertilizer management and waterlogging on nitrous oxide emission from
subtropical sugarcane soils. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 136, 209-217.
Andrea, M.O., Merlet, P., 2001. Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass
burning. Global Biogeochem. Cycle 15, 955-966.
Aulakh, M.S., Khera, T.S., Doran, J.W., Bronson, K.F., 2001. Denitrification, N2 O and
CO2 fluxes in rice-wheat cropping system as affected by crop residues, fertilizer
N and legume green manure. Biol. Fertil. Soils 34, 375-389.
Baggs, E.M., Rees, R.M., Smith, K.A., Vinten, A.J.A., 2000. Nitrous oxide emission from
soils after incorporating crop residues. Soil Use Manage. 16, 82-87.
Ball-Coelho, B., Tiessen, H., Stewart, J.W.B., Salcedo, .H., Sampaio, E.V.S.B., 1992.
Residue management effects on sugarcane yield and soil properties in north-
eastern Brazil. Agron. J. 85, 1004-1008.
Basanta, M.V., Dourado Neto, D., Richard, K., Bacchi, O.O.S., Oliveira, J.C.M., Triv-
elin, P.C.O., Timm, L.C., Tominaga, T.T., Correchel, V., Cssaro, F.A.M., Pires, L.F.,
Macedo, J.R., 2002. Eficincia no uso de nitrognio em relac o aos manejos
dos resduos da cultura de cana-de-ac car. n: Congresso Nacional DA STAB.
8. Recife-PE. STAB, Anais, Olinda, Recife, pp. 268-275.
Brjesson, P., 2009. Good or bad bioethanol from a greenhouse gas perspective -
what determines this? Appl. Energy 86, 589-594.
Brazilian National Energetic Balance, 2010. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from:
https://ben.epe.gov.br/downloads/Resultados Pre BEN 2010.pdf.
Cantarella, H., 1998. Adubac o nitrogenada em sistema de cana crua. Rev. STAB -
A . lc. Subprod. Piracicaba 16, 21-22.
Cerri, C.C., Bernoux, M., Cerri, C.E.P., Feller, C., 2004. Carbon cycling and sequestration
opportunities in South America: the case of Brazil. Soil Use Manage. 20, 248-254.
Cerri, C.C., Maia, S.M.F., Galdos, M.V., Cerri, C.E.P., Feigl, B.J., Bernoux, M., 2009. Brazil-
ian greenhouse gas emissions: the importance of agriculture and livestock. Sci. Agric.
66, 831-843.
Cole, V., Cerri, C.C., Minami, K., Mosier, A., Rosenberg, N., 1996. Agricultural options
for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. n: Watson, R.T., Zinyowera, M.C.,
Moss, R.H., Dokken, D.J. (Eds.), Climate Change 1555. mpacts, Adaptations and
Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge, pp. 745-771.
CONAB, 2010. Brazilian National Company of Provision. Retrieved January 20, 2010,
from http://www.conab.gov.br/conabweb/download/safra/1 cana 10.pdf.
Accessed in 05/05/2010.
Constantinides, M., Fownes, J.H., 1994. Nitrogen mineralization from leaves and lit-
ter of tropical plantsrelationship to nitrogen, lignin and soluble polyphenol
concentrations. Soil Biol. Biochem. 26, 49-55.
Crutzen, P.J., Mosier, A.R., Smith, K.A., Winiwater, W., 2008. N2 O release from agro-
biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels.
Atmos. Chem. Phys. 8, 389-395.
Davidson, A., Ackermann, C., 1993. Changes in soil carbon inventories following
cultivation of previously untilled soils. Biogeochemistry 20, 161-193.
De Figueiredo, E.B., Panosso, A.R., Romo, R., La Scala Jr., N., 2010. Greenhouse gas
emission associated with sugar production in southern Brazil. Carbon Balance Manage.
5, 1-7.
De Oliveira, M.E.D., Burton, E.V., Rykiel, J.R., 2005. Ethanol as fuel: energy, carbon
dioxide balances, and ecological footprint. Bioscience 55, 593-602.
De Resende, A.S., Xavier, R.P., de Oliveira, O.C., Urquiaga, S., Alves, B.J.R., Boddey,
R.M., 2006. Long-term effects of pre-harvest burning and nitrogen and vinasse
applications on yield of sugarcane and soil carbon and nitrogen stocks on a
plantation in Pernambuco, N.E. Brazil. Plant Soil 281, 339-351.
Doelsch, E., Masion, A., Cazevieille, P., Condom, N., 2009. Spectroscopic characteriza-
tion of organic matter of a soil and vinasse mixture during aerobic or anaerobic
incubation. Waste Manage. 29, 1929-1935.
Dourado Neto, D., Timm, L.C., Oliveira, J.C.M., Klaus, R., Bacchi, O.O.S., Tominaga, T.T.,
Cssaro, F.A.M., 1999. State-space approach for the analysis of soil water content
and temperature in a sugarcane crop. Sci. Agric. 56, 1215-1221.
Feller, C., 2001. Efeitos da colheita sem queima da cana-de-ac car sobre a dinmica
do carbono e propriedades do solo. Piracicaba 150 pp. (Final Report Fapesp Contract
98/12648-3).
Firestone, M.K., Davidson, E.A., 1989. Microbiological basis of NO and N2 O production
and consumption in soils. n: Andreae, M.O., Schimel, D.S. (Eds.), Exchange of
Trace Gases between Terrestrial Ecosystems and the Atmosphere. John Wiley and
Sons, Chichester, pp. 7-21.
Galdos, M.V., Cerri, C.C., Cerri, C.E.P., 2009. Soil carbon stocks under burned and
unburned sugarcane in Brazil. Geoderma 153, 347-352.
Goldemberg, J., Lucon, O., 2007. Energy and environment in Brazil. Estud. Avan. 21
(59).
Goldemberg, J., Coelho, S.T., Guardabassi, P., 2008. The sustainability of ethanol
production from sugarcane. Energy Policy 36, 2086-2097.
Graham, M.H., Haynes, R.J., Meyer, J.H., 2002. Changes in soil chemistry and aggre-
gate stability induced by fertilizer application, burning and trash retention
on a long-term sugarcane experiment in South Africa. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 53, 589-598.
Huang, Y., Zou, J.W., Zheng, X.H., Wang, Y.S., Xu, X.K., 2004. Nitrous oxide emissions
as influenced by amendment of plant residues with different C:N ratios. Soil Biol.
Biochem. 36, 973-981.
ntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PCC), 2006. PCC: Guidelines for
National Green House Gas nventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse
Gas nventories Programme. n: Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T.,
Tanabe, K. (Eds.), Japan: GES; 2006. Chapter 11, N2 O emissions from man-
aged soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. Chapter 2 Generic
methodologies applicable to multiple land-use categories.
ntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PCC), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. n: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis,
M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller, H.L. (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the ntergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA, p. 996.
Jantalia, C.P., Santos, H.P., Urquiaga, S., Boddey, R.M., Alves, B.J.R., 2008. Fluxes of
Nitrous oxide from soil under different crop rotations and systems in the South
of Brazil. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 82, 161-173.
La Scala Jr., N., Bolonhezi, D., Pereira, G.T., 2006. Short-term soil CO2 emission after
conventional and reduced tillage of a no-till sugar cane area in southern Brazil.
Soil Till. Res. 91, 244-248.
La Scala Jr., N., Lopes, A., Spokas, K., Bolonhezi, D., Archer, D.W., Reicosky, D.C., 2008.
Short-term temporal changes of soil carbon losses after tillage described by a
first-order decay model. Soil Till. Res. 99, 108-118.
Lal, R., 2004. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123,
1-22.
Levine, J., 2000. Global biomass burning: a case study of the gaseous and particu-
late emissions released to the atmosphere during the 1997 fires in Kalimantan
and Sumatra, ndonesia. n: nnes, J., Beniston, M., Verstraete, M. (Eds.), Biomass Burning
and its nter-relationships with the Climate System. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, pp. 15-31.
Lima, M., Ligo, M.A., Cabral, M.R., Boeira, R.C., Pessoa, M.P.Y., Neves, M.C., 1999. Emis-
so de gases de efeito estufa provenientes da queima de resduos agrcolas no
Brasil. Jaguarina: Embrapa Meio Ambiente, 60 pp. (Embrapa Meio Ambiente,
Documento, 07).
Luca, E.F., 2002. Matria orgnica e atributos do solo em sistemas de colheita
com e sem queima da cana-de-ac car. Piracicaba, USP/ESALQ, 101 pp. Tese
(Doutorado).
Macedo, .C., Leal, M.L.R.V., da Silva, Jear., 2004. Balanc o das emisses de
gases de efeito estufa na produc o e uso do etanol no Brasil. Secretaria
do Meio Ambiente, Governo do Estado de So Paulo. Retrieved February 05, 2010,
from http://www.unica.com.br/download.asp?mmdCode=76A95628-
B539-4637-BEB3-C9C48FB29084.
G Model
Macedo, .C., Seabra, J.E.A., Silva, J.E.A.R., 2008. Green house gases emissions in the
production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: the averages and a
prediction for 2020. Biomass Bioenergy 9, 582-595.
Martinelli, L.A., Ometto, J.P.H.B., Filoso, S., Victoria, R.L., 2010. Contex-
tualizing ethanol avoided carbon emissions in Brazil. Bioenergy 2,
152-156.
Meier, E.A., Thorburn, P.J., Wegener, M.K., Basford, K.E., 2006. The availability of
nitrogen from sugarcane trash on contrasting soils in the wet tropics of north
Queensland. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 75, 101-114.
Mendonc a, H.N.S., Lima, E., Anjos, L.H.C., 2000. Propriedades qumicas e biolgicas de
solo de tabuleiro cultivado com cana-de-ac car com e sem queima da palhada.
Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 24, 201-207.
Millar, N., Ndufa, J.K., Cadisch, G., Baggs, E.M., 2004. Nitrous oxide emissions fol-
lowing incorporation of improved-fallow residues in the humid tropics. Global
Biogeochem. Cycle 18, 1032.
Mitchell, R.D.J., Thorburn, P.J., Larsen, P., 2000. Quantifying the loss of nutrients
from the immediate area when sugarcane residues are burnt. n: Proc. Aust.
Soc. Sugarcane Technol., vol. 22 , pp. 206-211.
Oliveira, M.W., Trivelin, P.C.O., Penatti, C.P., Piccollo, M.C., 1999. Decomposi o
e libera o de nutrientes da palhada de cana-de-ac car em campo. Pesq.
Agropecu. Bras. 34, 2359-2362.
Oliveira, M.W., Trivelin, P.C.O., Kingston, G., Barbosa, M.H.P., Vitti, A.C., 2002.
Decomposition and release of nutrients from sugarcane trash in two agri-
cultural environments in Brasil. n: Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. , pp. 290-
296.
Paustian, K., Andrn, O., Janzen, H.H., Lal, R., Smith, P., Tian, G., Tiessen, H., Noordwijk,
M.V., Woomer, P.L., 1997. Agricultural soils as a sink to mitigate CO2 emissions.
Soil Use Manage. 13, 230-244.
Prinn, R., 2004. Non-CO greenhouse gases. n: Field, C.B., Raupach, M.R. (Eds.), The
Global Carbon Cycle: ntegrating Humans Climate and Natural World. sland
Press, Washington, pp. 75-82.
Proconve, 2006. Air Control Program by Auto Motor Vehicle Pollution. Programa
de Controle da Poluic o do Ar por Veculos Automotores: Retrieved January 07,
2010 from http://www.ibama.gov.br/proconve/obter cagn.php.
Robertson, F.A., Thorburn, P.J., 2007. Management of sugarcane harvest residues:
consequences for soil carbon and nitrogen. Soil Res. 45, 13-23.
Ronquim, C.C., 2007. Dinmica espac o temporal do carbono aprisionado na
fitomassa dos agroecossistemas do Nordeste do Estado de So Paulo.
Campinas: Embrapa Monitoramento por Satlite; Ribeiro Preto: ABA-
GRP, 52. Retrieved January 10, 2010, from http://www.abagrp.org.br/
media/uploads/pdf/lv fitomassa nesp.pdf.
Rudorff, B.F.T., de Aguiar, D.A., da Silva, W.F., Sugawara, L.M., Adami, M., Moreira,
M.A., 2010. Studies on the rapid expansion of sugarcane for ethanol production
in So Paulo State (Brazil) using landsat data. Remote Sens. 2, 1057-1076.
Seabra, J.E.A., Macedo, .C., 2008. Balan odeenergiaeemissesdeGEEnaprodu o
do ac car e lcool orgnico na usina So Francisco. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from
http://www.nativealimentos.com.br/upload/nventario CO2.pdf.
Secretariat of Environment of So Paulo State, 2010. Poltica Ambiental Paulista
Relatrio de cumprimento de metas e resultados. Retrieved July 13, 2010, from
http://www.ambiente.sp.gov.br/uploads/arquivos/relatoriogestao/relatorio
gestao final.pdf.
Siqueira, J.O., Franco, A.A., 1988. Biotecnologia do solo: fundamentos e perspectivas.
MEC, ABEAS, ESAL, FAEPE, Braslia, 236 pp.
Smith, J.H., Douglas, C.L., 1971. Wheat straw decomposition in the field. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. Proc. 35, 269-272.
Soares, L.H. de B., Alves, B.J.R., Urquiaga, S., Boddey, M.R., 2009. Mitiga o
das emisses de Gases de Efeito Estufa pelo Uso de Etanol da Cana-de
Ac car Produzido no Brasil. Retrieved July 20, 2010, from http://www.cnpab.
embrapa.br/publicacoes/download/cit027.pdf. Embrapa, Seropdia (Circular
Tcnica, 27).
Spain, A.V., Hodgen, M.J., 1994. Changes in the decomposition of sugarcane har-
vest residues during the decomposition as a surface mulch. Biol. Fertil. Soils 17,
225-231.
Sparovek, G., Schung, E., 2001. Soil tillage and precision agriculture. A theoretical
case study for soil erosion control in Brazilian sugarcane production. Soil Till.
Res. 61, 47-54.
Tejada, M., Gonzalez, J.L., 2005. Beet vinasse applied to wheat under dryland condi-
tions affects soil properties and yield. Eur. J. Agron. 23, 336-347.
Thorburn, P.J., Probert, M.E., Robertson, F.A., 2001. Modelling decomposition of sugar
cane surface residues with APSM-Residue. Field Crop. Res. 70, 223-232.
Tominaga, T.T., Cssaro, F.A.M., Bacchi, O.O.S., Reichard, K., Oliveira, J.C.M., Timm,
L.C., 2002. Variability of soil water content and bulk density in a sugarcane field. Aust. J.
Soil Res. 40, 605-614.
Trivelin, P.C.O., Victoria, R.L., Rodrigues, J.C.S., 1995. Aproveitamento por soqueira
de cana-de-ac car de final de safra do nitrognio da aquamnia-15N e uria-
15N aplicado ao solo em complemento vinhac a. Pesq. Agropecu. Bras. 30, 1375-
1385.
Trivelin, P.C.O., Victoria, R.L., Rodrigues, J.C.S., 1996. Utilizac o por soqueira de
cana-de-ac car de incio de safra do nitrognio da aquamnia-15N e uria-15N
aplicado ao solo em complemento vinhac a. Pesq. Agropecu. Bras. 31, 89-99.
Trivellin, P.C.O., Vitti, A.C., 2002. Manejo do nitrogenio e enxofre na nutri o
e aduba o da cana-de-ac car. Retrieved May 17, 2010, from http://
www.inpofos.org/ppiweb/pbrazil.nsf/926048f0196c9d4285256983005c64de/
4d10570e5a72a8cc032570d800413979/$FLE/Anais%20Paulo%20Trivelin%20e
%20Andre%20Vitti.pdf.
Vallis, ., Parton, W.J., Keating, B.A., Wood, A.W., 1996. Simulation of the effects of
trash and N fertilizer management on soil organic matter levels and yields of
sugarcane. Soil Till. Res. 38, 115-132.
Vian, C.E.F., Belik, W., Paulillo, L.F., Corder, L.M., 2008. Perspectivas da
agroenergia no Brasil. Rio Branco. Sociedade Brasileira de Economia,
Administrac o e Sociologia Rural. Retrieved December 17, 2010, from
http://www.sober.org.br/palestra/9/806.pdf.
Vitti, G.C., Mazza, J.A., 2002. Planejamento, estratgias de manejo e
nutri o da cana de ac car. Piracicaba. Potafos. 16 pp. Encarte
tcnico/informac es agronmicas, 97. Retrieved September 17, 2010, from
http://www.potafos.org/ppiweb/brazil.nsf/87cb8a98bf72572b8525693e0053-
ea70/d5fbc829a2f54298832569f8004695c5/$FLE/Encarte%2097.pdf.
Vitti, A.C., 2003. Aduba o nitrogenada de cana de ac car (soqueira) colhida mecani-
camente sem a queima prvia: manejo e efeito na produtividade. Piracicaba, abril
2003. Tese de Doutorado. 114 pp. Centro de Energia Nuclear na Agricultura, Universidade
de So Paulo.
Walter, A., Dolzan, P., Quilodrn, O., Garcia, J., Da Silva, C., Piacente, F.,
Segerstedt., A. 2008. A Sustainability Analysis of the Brazilian Bio-
ethanol. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
British Embassy, Brasilia. Retrieved May 17, 2010, from http://www.
globalbioenergy.org/uploads/media/0811 Unicamp A sustainability analysis
of the Brazilian ethanol.pdf.
Wrage, N., Van Groenigen, J.W., Oenema, O., Baggs, E.M., 2005. A novel dual-isotope
labelling method for distinguishing between soil sources of N2 O. Rapid Commun.
Mass Spectrom. 19, 3298-3306.

Art. 2 (Eduardo) - Pronto

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Art. 2 (Eduardo) - Pronto

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

G Model

AGEE-3824; No. of Pages 9

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi