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
  • [31] N2O emissions from agricultural lands: a synthesis of simulation approaches
    Deli Chen
    Yong Li
    Peter Grace
    Arvin R. Mosier
    Plant and Soil, 2008, 309 : 169 - 189
  • [32] Modeling N2O emissions from agricultural fields in Southeast China
    Gou, J
    Zheng, XH
    Wang, MX
    Li, CS
    ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 1999, 16 (04) : 581 - 592
  • [33] N2O Emissions from Two Austrian Agricultural Catchments Simulated with an N2O Submodule Developed for the SWAT Model
    Wang, Cong
    Schuerz, Christoph
    Zoboli, Ottavia
    Zessner, Matthias
    Schulz, Karsten
    Watzinger, Andrea
    Bodner, Gernot
    Mehdi-Schulz, Bano
    ATMOSPHERE, 2022, 13 (01)
  • [34] N2O emissions on the up
    King, Anthony
    CHEMISTRY & INDUSTRY, 2020, 84 (11) : 5 - 5
  • [35] A Review of the Main Process-Based Approaches for Modeling N2O Emissions from Agricultural Soils
    Gabbrielli, Mara
    Allegrezza, Marina
    Ragaglini, Giorgio
    Manco, Antonio
    Vitale, Luca
    Perego, Alessia
    HORTICULTURAE, 2024, 10 (01)
  • [36] Impact of gas-water ratios on N2O emissions in biological aerated filters and analysis of N2O emissions pathways
    Yang, Qing
    Cui, Bin
    Zhou, Yao
    Li, Jianmin
    Liu, Zhibin
    Liu, Xiuhong
    Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 723
  • [37] Impact of gas-water ratios on N2O emissions in biological aerated filters and analysis of N2O emissions pathways
    Yang, Qing
    Cui, Bin
    Zhou, Yao
    Li, Jianmin
    Liu, Zhibin
    Liu, Xiuhong
    SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2020, 723
  • [38] The potential effect of variations in climate and agricultural practice on N2O emissions (Ⅱ)——Variations in agricultural practice
    XU Wenbin~(1
    2. Institute of Environment and Resources Chemistry
    3. Soil and Fertilizer Institute
    4. Institute for the Study of Earth
    Chinese Science Bulletin, 1999, (S2) : 97 - 99
  • [39] Effects of soil solution on the dynamics of N2O emissions:: a review
    Heincke, M
    Kaupenjohann, M
    NUTRIENT CYCLING IN AGROECOSYSTEMS, 1999, 55 (02) : 133 - 157
  • [40] Control of NO3− and N2O emissions in agroecosystems: A review
    Gero Benckiser
    Tanja Schartel
    Achim Weiske
    Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2015, 35 : 1059 - 1074