Review and analysis of global agricultural N2O emissions relevant to the UK

被引:39
|
作者
Buckingham, S. [1 ]
Anthony, S. [2 ]
Bellamy, P. H. [3 ]
Cardenas, L. M. [4 ]
Higgins, S. [5 ]
McGeough, K. [5 ]
Topp, C. F. E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Scotlands Rural Coll, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, Midlothian, Scotland
[2] Agr Dev & Advisory Serv, Wolverhampton WV9 5AP, W Midlands, England
[3] Cranfield Univ, Cranfield MK43 0AL, Beds, England
[4] Rothamsted Res, North Wyke, Okehampton EX20 2SB, Devon, England
[5] Agrifood & Biosci Inst, Belfast BT9 5PX, Antrim, North Ireland
基金
英国生物技术与生命科学研究理事会;
关键词
Nitrous oxide emissions; Agricultural soils; Emission factors; NITROUS-OXIDE EMISSIONS; AVAILABLE MEASUREMENT DATA; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; CROP PRODUCTION; FLUXES; SOILS; NO; INVENTORY; NORTHERN; TILLAGE;
D O I
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.02.122
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
As part of a UK government funded research project to update the UK N2O inventory methodology, a systematic review of published nitrous oxide (N2O) emission factors was carried out of non-UK research, for future comparison and synthesis with the UK measurement based evidence base. The aim of the study is to assess how the UK IPCC default emission factor for N2O emissions derived from synthetic or organic fertiliser inputs (EF1) compares to international values reported in published literature. The availability of data for comparing and/or refining the UK IPCC default value and the possibility of analysing sufficient auxiliary data to propose a Tier 2 EF1, reporting strategy is evaluated. The review demonstrated a lack of consistency in reporting error bounds for fertiliser-derived EFs and N2O flux data with 8% and 44% of publications reporting EF and N2O flux error bounds respectively. There was also poor description of environmental (climate and soil) and experimental design auxiliary data. This is likely to be due to differences in study objectives, however potential improvements to soil parameter reporting are proposed. The review demonstrates that emission factors for agricultural-derived N2O emissions ranged - 0.34% to 37% showing high variation compared to the UK Tier 1 IPCC EF1 default values of 1.25% (IPCC 1996) and 1% (IPPC 2006). However, the majority (83%) of EFs reported for UK-relevant soils fell within the UK IPCC EF1 uncertainty range of 0.03% to 3%. Residual maximum likelihood (REML) analysis of the data collated in the review showed that the type and rate of fertiliser N applied and soil type were significant factors influencing EFs reported. Country of emission, the length of the measurement period, the number of splits, the crop type, pH and SOC did not have a significant impact on N2O emissions. A subset of publications where sufficient data was reported for meta-analysis to be conducted was identified. Meta-analysis of effect sizes of 41 treatments demonstrated that the application of fertiliser has a significant effect on N2O emissions in comparison to control plots and that emission factors were significantly different to zero. However no significant relationships between the quantity of fertiliser applied and the effect size of the amount of N2O emitted from fertilised plots compared to control plots were found. Annual addition of fertiliser of 35 to 557 kg N/ha gave a mean increase in emissions of 2.02 +/- 0.28 g N2O/ha/day compared to control treatments (p < 0.01). Emission factors were significantly different from zero, with a mean emission factor estimated directly from the meta analysis of 0.17 +/- 0.02%. This is lower than the IPCC 2006 Tier 1 EF1, value of 1% but falling within the uncertainty bound for the IPCC 2006 Tier 1 EF1 (0.03% to 3%). As only a small number of papers were viable for meta analysis to be conducted due to lack of reporting of the key controlling factors, the estimates of EF in this paper cannot include the true variability under conditions similar to the UK. Review-derived EFs of 0.34% to 37% and mean EF from meta-analysis of 0.17 +/- 0.02% highlight variability in reporting EFs depending on the method applied and sample size. A protocol of systematic reporting of N2O emissions and key auxiliary parameters in publications across disciplines is proposed. If adopted this would strengthen the community to inform IPCC Tier 2 reporting development and reduce the uncertainty surrounding reported UK N2O emissions. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:164 / 172
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Global trends and uncertainties in terrestrial denitrification and N2O emissions
    Bouwman, A. F.
    Beusen, A. H. W.
    Griffioen, J.
    Van Groenigen, J. W.
    Hefting, M. M.
    Oenema, O.
    Van Puijenbroek, P. J. T. M.
    Seitzinger, S.
    Slomp, C. P.
    Stehfest, E.
    PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2013, 368 (1621)
  • [22] Modeling global N2O emissions from aquatic systems
    Ivens, Wilfried P. M. F.
    Tysmans, Daisy J. J.
    Kroeze, Carolien
    Loehr, Ansje J.
    van Wijnen, Jikke
    CURRENT OPINION IN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY, 2011, 3 (05) : 350 - 358
  • [23] Modeling N2O Emissions from Agricultural Fields in Southeast China
    勾继
    郑循华
    王明星
    李长生
    AdvancesinAtmosphericSciences, 1999, (04) : 581 - 587
  • [24] Mitigating N2O emissions from agricultural soils with fungivorous mites
    Haoyang Shen
    Yutaka Shiratori
    Sayuri Ohta
    Yoko Masuda
    Kazuo Isobe
    Keishi Senoo
    The ISME Journal, 2021, 15 : 2427 - 2439
  • [25] Modeling N2O Emissions from Agricultural Fields in Southeast China
    Gou J.
    Zheng X.
    Wang M.
    Li C.
    Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 1999, 16 (4) : 581 - 592
  • [26] N2O emissions from agricultural lands:: a synthesis of simulation approaches
    Chen, Deli
    Li, Yong
    Grace, Peter
    Mosier, Arvin R.
    PLANT AND SOIL, 2008, 309 (1-2) : 169 - 189
  • [27] Modelling variability in N2O emissions from fertilized agricultural fields
    Grant, RF
    Pattey, E
    SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY, 2003, 35 (02): : 225 - 243
  • [28] Mitigating N2O emissions from agricultural soils with fungivorous mites
    Shen, Haoyang
    Shiratori, Yutaka
    Ohta, Sayuri
    Masuda, Yoko
    Isobe, Kazuo
    Senoo, Keishi
    ISME JOURNAL, 2021, 15 (08): : 2427 - 2439
  • [29] Effect of agricultural management on N2O emissions in the Brazilian sugarcane yield
    Fracetto, Felipe J. C.
    Fracetto, Giselle G. M.
    Bertini, Simone C. B.
    Cerri, Carlos C.
    Feigl, Brigitte J.
    Siqueira Neto, Marcos
    SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY, 2017, 109 : 205 - 213
  • [30] Projecting future N2O emissions from agricultural soils in Belgium
    Roelandt, Caroline
    Dendoncker, Nicolas
    Rounsevell, Mark
    Perrin, Dominique
    Van Wesemael, Bas
    GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 2007, 13 (01) : 18 - 27