Life cycle assessment of mulch use on Okanagan apple orchards: Part 2-Consequential

被引:6
作者
Bamber, Nicole [1 ]
Jones, Melanie [2 ]
Nelson, Louise [3 ]
Hannam, Kirsten [4 ]
Nichol, Craig [5 ]
Pelletier, Nathan [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ British Columbia, Food Syst PRISM Lab, 340-3247 Univ Way, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada
[2] Univ British Columbia, 385-1177 Res Rd, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada
[3] Univ British Columbia, 373-3187 Univ Way, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada
[4] Agr & Agri Food Canada, Summerland Res & Dev Ctr, 4200 Highway 97 South, Summerland, BC V0H 1ZO, Canada
[5] Univ British Columbia, 306-1177 Res Rd, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada
关键词
Life cycle assessment; Consequential; Mulch; Bioenergy; Apple production; Climate change mitigation; DRIP IRRIGATION; CONSUMPTION; UNCERTAINTY; CLIMATE; YIELD;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125022
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Wood and bark chip mulch has been shown to reduce net orchard greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on an Okanagan Valley (British Columbia, Canada) apple orchard. However, this benefit was shown to be outweighed by the (attributional) life cycle impacts associated with mulch production. The current study expanded the scope of prior investigations to perform a consequential life cycle assessment of the impacts of increasing wood chip/bark mulch use in the production of apples on Okanagan orchards. This assessment included the impacts of the orchard system as well as other current alternative uses of wood chip/bark mulch which included bioenergy production and paper manufacturing. Many environmental impact categories were examined including human toxicity, freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity, depletion of abiotic resources (elements, ultimate reserves), photochemical oxidation, ozone layer depletion, terrestrial ecotoxicity, acidification potential, climate change, eutrophication, land use land competition, and energy use (including non-renewable: fossil, nuclear, primary forest; and renewable: biomass, geothermal, solar, water and wind). One scenario was modelled to represent the case in which no mulch was used on orchards (only used for alternative products). A second model was created to represent the marginal impacts of adding the amount of mulch to an apple orchard necessary to produce 1 kg of apples (0.575 kg bark and 0.144 kg wood chips). These amounts of bark and wood chips were assumed to be taken away from their current alternative uses (co -generation for bark and paper production for wood chips), thereby decreasing the amount of electricity and heat produced by bark by 0.653 kWh electricity and 0.653 MJ heat, and the amount of paper produced by wood chips by 0.144 kg paper. In turn, these amounts of electricity, heat and paper were assumed to be produced by their marginal production technologies hydro-electric generation for electricity, natural gas for heat, and recycled paper for paper production. Finally, the scenarios were modelled assuming the marginal market for co-generation from bark was in Washington, USA rather than the Okanagan, as a sensitivity analysis. The results did not show a clear environmental benefit to either using or not using mulch on orchards. In the scenario in which bark mulch was assumed to be used either on apple orchards or for cogeneration in British Columbia, impacts in 14 categories (including climate change, eutrophication, acidification, all toxicities, land use and some renewable energy use) were lower when mulch was used on the orchard, and results for 5 categories (including some non-renewable and renewable resources/energy use) were higher. When bark mulch was assumed to be used either on orchards or for cogeneration in Washington, terrestrial ecotoxicity, land use, biomass and solar energy use were lower when mulch was used on the orchard, and all others (15 categories) were higher. There was a large amount of uncertainty in the model, coming from data variability, data quality and impact assessment uncertainty. Overall, the orchard system played a significant role in the impact assessment results, and was the main contributor to the overall uncertainty. Based on these results, mulch use on orchards cannot be recommended to reduce environmental impacts, but the marginal impacts of using mulch warrant further investigation. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (hap://creaLivecummons.ur/licenses/by-ac-nd/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 27 条
  • [1] American Biomass Corporation Inc, 2016, AM BIOM ACQ OK WOOD
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2010, CLEAN ENERGY ACT
  • [3] Bamber N., 2020, J CLEARN PROD, V267, P1, DOI [10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121960., DOI 10.1016/J.JCLEPR0.2020.121960]
  • [4] Evaluation of the environmental impacts of apple production using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Case study in New Zealand
    Canals, LMI
    Burnip, GM
    Cowell, SJ
    [J]. AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 2006, 114 (2-4) : 226 - 238
  • [5] Mulches Reduce Weeds, Maintain Yield, and Promote Soil Quality in a Continental-Climate Vineyard
    DeVetter, Lisa W.
    Dilley, Craig A.
    Nonnecke, Gail R.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ENOLOGY AND VITICULTURE, 2015, 66 (01): : 54 - 64
  • [6] European Commission-Joint Research Centre-Institute for Environment and Sustainability, 2010, HDB SPEC GUID LIF CY, VFirst
  • [7] Effect of drip irrigation frequency, nitrogen rate and mulching on nitrous oxide emissions in a semi-arid climate: An assessment across two years in an apple orchard
    Fentabil, Mesfin M.
    Nichol, Craig F.
    Jones, Melanie D.
    Neilsen, Gerry H.
    Neilsen, Denise
    Hannam, Kirsten D.
    [J]. AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 2016, 235 : 242 - 252
  • [8] Forest Products Association of Canada, 2004, EST PROD CONS SURPL
  • [9] Forestry Innovation Investment Ltd, 2019, NAT BR
  • [10] Fortis B.C., 2019, WHY CHOOSE NATURAL G