Is farmers' agricultural production a carbon sink or source? - Variable system boundary and household survey data

被引:30
作者
Chen, Ru [1 ]
Zhang, Ruoyan [2 ]
Han, Hongyun [1 ]
Jiang, Zhide [2 ]
机构
[1] Zhejiang Univ, Sch Publ Affairs, China Acad Rural Dev, Hangzhou 310058, Peoples R China
[2] Northwest Agr & Forestry Univ, Sch Econ & Management, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Carbon footprint; Carbon effect; Life cycle assessment; Carbon-nitrogen cycle; System boundary; Peasant household survey; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; NET ECOSYSTEM CARBON; CROP PRODUCTION; FOOTPRINT; CHINA; CYCLE; STORAGE; BUDGET;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122108
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The widespread and scattered smallholders in China have a profound impact on agricultural production in response to climate change. Using the data of peasant household obtained from survey and the factor coefficients collected in Shaanxi Province of China, the carbon footprint (CF) of farmer's agricultural production (FAP) was estimated by a multi system boundary scenarios approach to judge the contribution of FAP for climate change reasonably. The results showed that the agricultural activities' carbon footprint (ACF), farm's carbon footprint (FCF) and product's carbon footprint (PCF) of wheat, maize, rice and apple crops in FAP exhibited significant differences in four scenarios, and the positive climate externalities of FAP rely on its own duality of carbon effect. Distribution structure of ACF in FAP subsystem under the four scenarios indicated that allocation of emission responsibility has a significant impact on the carbon effect of FAP. The categories of key source in FAP were greenhouse gas emissions from heterotrophic soil respiration in agro-ecosystem (AE), chemical fertilizer in raw material production system (RMPS), diesel or gasoline in RMPS and agricultural production system and direct N2O emissions in AE, and the key sink categories were carbon sequestration from crop biomass and cropland management in AE. Therefore, the ecological benefits should be embedded in the economic benefit-oriented agricultural production policy objectives, in order to reduce the dependence on high energy-consuming industrial products in FAP, optimize the agricultural industrial structure and guide farmers from cleaner production behavior. Besides, the uncertainties of CF accounting method drop significantly which we improved by integrating carbon-nitrogen cycle into life cycle assessment theory. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 48 条
  • [1] Improving carbon footprinting of agricultural systems: Boundaries, tiers, and organic farming
    Adewale, Cornelius
    Reganold, John P.
    Higgins, Stewart
    Evans, R. D.
    Carpenter-Boggs, Lynne
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2018, 71 : 41 - 48
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2006, National greenhouse gas inventories: Land use, land use change and forestry
  • [3] The complex farm-level relationship between environmental performance and productivity: The case of carbon footprint of Lombardy farms
    Baldoni, Edoardo
    Coderoni, Silvia
    Esposti, Roberto
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 2018, 89 : 73 - 82
  • [4] Baldoni E, 2017, BIO-BASED APPL ECON, V6, P119, DOI 10.13128/BAE-19112
  • [5] Managing forests in uncertain times
    Bellassen, Valentin
    Luyssaert, Sebastiaan
    [J]. NATURE, 2014, 506 (7487) : 153 - 155
  • [6] Globally rising soil heterotrophic respiration over recent decades
    Bond-Lamberty, Ben
    Bailey, Vanessa L.
    Chen, Min
    Gough, Christopher M.
    Vargas, Rodrigo
    [J]. NATURE, 2018, 560 (7716) : 80 - +
  • [7] Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting
    Brandao, Miguel
    Levasseur, Annie
    Kirschbaum, Miko U. F.
    Weidema, Bo P.
    Cowie, Annette L.
    Jorgensen, Susanne Vedel
    Hauschild, Michael Z.
    Pennington, David W.
    Chomkhamsri, Kirana
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2013, 18 (01) : 230 - 240
  • [8] Bryan BA, 2016, NAT CLIM CHANGE, V6, P301, DOI [10.1038/NCLIMATE2874, 10.1038/nclimate2874]
  • [9] Bsi, 2008, 2050 BSI
  • [10] Management effects on net ecosystem carbon and GHG budgets at European crop sites
    Ceschia, E.
    Beziat, P.
    Dejoux, J. F.
    Aubinet, M.
    Bernhofer, Ch.
    Bodson, B.
    Buchmann, N.
    Carrara, A.
    Cellier, P.
    Di Tommasi, P.
    Elbers, J. A.
    Eugster, W.
    Gruenwald, T.
    Jacobs, C. M. J.
    Jans, W. W. P.
    Jones, M.
    Kutsch, W.
    Lanigan, G.
    Magliulo, E.
    Marloie, O.
    Moors, E. J.
    Moureaux, C.
    Olioso, A.
    Osborne, B.
    Sanz, M. J.
    Saunders, M.
    Smith, P.
    Soegaard, H.
    Wattenbach, M.
    [J]. AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 2010, 139 (03) : 363 - 383