Carbon footprint and carbon balance of three long-term dryland cropping sequences

Upendra M. Sainju, Brett L. Allen
{"title":"Carbon footprint and carbon balance of three long-term dryland cropping sequences","authors":"Upendra M. Sainju,&nbsp;Brett L. Allen","doi":"10.1002/saj2.20703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Carbon footprints from plants, soil, and the environment are needed to evaluate C balance of an agroecosystem, which indicates if a system is a C source or sink for mitigating climate change. There is scarce information about C footprint and C balance in dryland agroecosystems. We measured C storage of above- and belowground crop biomass, CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes, soil C sequestration rates, and C balances of three long-term (34-year-old) dryland cropping sequences from 2016 to 2018 in the US northern Great Plains. Cropping sequences were no-till continuous spring wheat (NTCW; <i>Triticum aestivum</i> L.), no-till spring wheat–pea (NTWP; <i>Pisum sativum</i> L.), and conventional till spring wheat–fallow (CTWF). Carbon storage in grain, straw, root, and rhizodeposit were 29%–61% greater for NTCW and NTWP than CTWF. The CO<sub>2</sub> flux peaked immediately after tillage, planting, fertilization, and intense precipitation (&gt;10 mm) for 3 months in 2016–2017. Cumulative annual CO<sub>2</sub> flux was 8%–37% greater for NTCW than NTWP and CTWF in 2016–2017, but was not different among cropping sequences in 2017–2018. Soil C sequestration rate at 0–10 cm measured from 2012 to 2019 was in the order: NTCW (0.27 Mg C ha<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup>) &gt; NTWP &gt; CTWF (−0.23 Mg C ha<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup>). Carbon balance remained negative and was not significantly different among cropping sequences but varied by year. Carbon loss increased with increased precipitation, regardless of cropping systems. Although a C source, the legume–nonlegume rotation can reduce C loss due to greater grain C output than other cropping sequences in the semiarid region of the northern Great Plains.</p>","PeriodicalId":101043,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America","volume":"88 4","pages":"1405-1418"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/saj2.20703","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/saj2.20703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Carbon footprints from plants, soil, and the environment are needed to evaluate C balance of an agroecosystem, which indicates if a system is a C source or sink for mitigating climate change. There is scarce information about C footprint and C balance in dryland agroecosystems. We measured C storage of above- and belowground crop biomass, CO2 fluxes, soil C sequestration rates, and C balances of three long-term (34-year-old) dryland cropping sequences from 2016 to 2018 in the US northern Great Plains. Cropping sequences were no-till continuous spring wheat (NTCW; Triticum aestivum L.), no-till spring wheat–pea (NTWP; Pisum sativum L.), and conventional till spring wheat–fallow (CTWF). Carbon storage in grain, straw, root, and rhizodeposit were 29%–61% greater for NTCW and NTWP than CTWF. The CO2 flux peaked immediately after tillage, planting, fertilization, and intense precipitation (>10 mm) for 3 months in 2016–2017. Cumulative annual CO2 flux was 8%–37% greater for NTCW than NTWP and CTWF in 2016–2017, but was not different among cropping sequences in 2017–2018. Soil C sequestration rate at 0–10 cm measured from 2012 to 2019 was in the order: NTCW (0.27 Mg C ha−1 year−1) > NTWP > CTWF (−0.23 Mg C ha−1 year−1). Carbon balance remained negative and was not significantly different among cropping sequences but varied by year. Carbon loss increased with increased precipitation, regardless of cropping systems. Although a C source, the legume–nonlegume rotation can reduce C loss due to greater grain C output than other cropping sequences in the semiarid region of the northern Great Plains.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
三种长期旱地耕作序列的碳足迹和碳平衡
评估农业生态系统的碳平衡需要植物、土壤和环境的碳足迹,这表明一个系统是减缓气候变化的碳源还是碳汇。有关旱地农业生态系统碳足迹和碳平衡的信息很少。我们测量了 2016 年至 2018 年美国北部大平原三个长期(34 年)旱地耕作序列的地上和地下作物生物量的碳储存、二氧化碳通量、土壤碳固存率和碳平衡。种植序列为免耕连作春小麦(NTCW;Triticum aestivum L.)、免耕春小麦-豌豆(NTWP;Pisum sativum L.)和常规耕作春小麦-耕地(CTWF)。免耕春小麦-豌豆(NTWP;Pisum sativiv L.)和传统耕作春小麦-耕地(CTWF)的谷物、秸秆、根茎和根瘤中的碳储量比 CTWF 高 29%-61% 。2016-2017 年,在耕作、播种、施肥和持续 3 个月的强降水(10 毫米)之后,二氧化碳通量立即达到峰值。2016-2017 年,NTCW 的累积年二氧化碳通量比 NTWP 和 CTWF 高 8%-37%,但 2017-2018 年各种植序列之间没有差异。2012 年至 2019 年测量的 0-10 厘米土壤固碳率依次为NTCW(0.27 Mg C ha-1 year-1)>;NTWP >;CTWF(-0.23 Mg C ha-1 year-1)。碳平衡仍为负值,不同种植序列之间无显著差异,但因年份而异。无论采用哪种耕作制度,碳损失都随着降水量的增加而增加。在大平原北部半干旱地区,豆科-非豆科轮作虽然是碳源,但由于谷物碳输出量比其他耕作序列大,因此可以减少碳损失。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A portable low-cost incubation chamber for real-time characterization of soil respiration Novel slow-release fertilizer promotes nitrogen circularity while increasing soil organic carbon Erratum to: Effects of maize residue and biochar applications on soil δ13C and organic carbon sources in a subtropical paddy rice ecosystem Microbial inocula enhance effects of biochar amendments on crop productivity, soil health, and microbial communities: A meta-analysis Comparison of laser diffractometry and pipetting methods for particle size determination: A pilot study on the implications of result discrepancies on soil classification
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1