Crop residues on short-term CO2 emissions in sugarcane production areas

Corradi, Mariana Marotti; Panosso, Alan Rodrigo; Filho, Marcílio Vieira Martins; Scala, Newton La

doi:10.1590/s0100-69162013000400009

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, CO 2 from decomposition of residues is not counted in studies that produce inventories of GHG emission in agriculture, because this CO 2 (biogenic) is cycled in the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum and it is distinguished from CO 2 emitted from fossil fuels used for energy production, which accumulates in the atmosphere (Pourhashem et al, 2013). Nevertheless, crop residue harvest could favor CO 2 emissions, due to the increase in temperature and reduction of moisture in the soil (Corradi et al, 2013;Guzman et al, 2015). The harvest of crop residues over the years should reduce organic C in the soil that could cause significant implications for CO 2 emissions (Six et al, 2004).…”

Section: Impact Of Crop Residues On Ghg Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crop residue harvest for bioenergy production and its implications on soil functioning and plant growth: A review

Cherubin

Oliveira

Feigl

et al. 2018

Sci. agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.)

219

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The use of crop residues as a bioenergy feedstock is considered a potential strategy to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, indiscriminate harvesting of crop residues can induce deleterious effects on soil functioning, plant growth and other ecosystem services. Here, we have summarized the information available in the literature to identify and discuss the main trade-offs and synergisms involved in crop residue management for bioenergy production. The data consistently showed that crop residue harvest and the consequent lower input of organic matter into the soil led to C storage depletions over time, reducing cycling, supply and availability of soil nutrients, directly affecting the soil biota. Although the biota regulates key functions in the soil, crop residue can also cause proliferation of some important agricultural pests. In addition, crop residues act as physical barriers that protect the soil against raindrop impact and temperature variations. Therefore, intensive crop residue harvest can cause soil structure degradation, leading to soil compaction and increased risks of erosion. With regard to GHG emissions, there is no consensus about the potential impact of management of crop residue harvest. In general, residue harvest decreases CO 2 and N 2 O emissions from the decomposition process, but it has no significant effect on CH 4 emissions. Plant growth responses to soil and microclimate changes due to crop residue harvest are site and crop specific. Adoption of the best management practices can mitigate the adverse impacts of crop residue harvest. Longterm experiments within strategic production regions are essential to understand and monitor the impact of integrated agricultural systems and propose customized solutions for sustainable crop residue management in each region or landscape. Furthermore, private and public investments/cooperations are necessary for a better understanding of the potential environmental, economic and social implications of crop residue use for bioenergy production.

show abstract

Section: Impact Of Crop Residues On Ghg Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crop residue harvest for bioenergy production and its implications on soil functioning and plant growth: A review

Cherubin

Oliveira

Feigl

et al. 2018

Sci. agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.)

219

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Brazil, short‐term studies have demonstrated that the removal of sugarcane straw increases soil CO 2 emissions (Corradi et al ., ; Teixeira et al ., ; De Figueiredo et al ., ). Such emissions respond to exponential increases in soil temperature (Davidson et al ., ), which in turn have a remarkable effect on the microbial activity that induces the decomposition of SOM and roots (Silva‐Olaya et al ., ).…”

Section: Impacts Of Straw Removal On Soil Greenhouse Gas Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Corradi et al . () evaluated the effect of straw removal on soil CO 2 emissions. This study observed emissions of 4.1, 3.8, and 5.5 Mg CO 2 ha −1 for areas with 0%, 50%, and 100% straw removal, respectively.…”

Section: Impacts Of Straw Removal On Soil Greenhouse Gas Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agronomic and environmental implications of sugarcane straw removal: a major review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large‐scale bioenergy demand has triggered new approaches to straw management in Brazilian sugarcane fields. With the progressive shift from a burned to a nonburned harvest system, most of the straw presently retained on the soil surface has become economically viable feedstock for bioenergy production. The trade‐offs between the need to preserve soil quality and produce more bioenergy have been the subject of intense discussion. This study presents a synthesis of available information on the magnitude of the main impacts of straw removal from sugarcane fields for bioenergy production and therefore represents an easily available resource to guide management decisions on the recommended amount of straw to be maintained on the field to take advantage of the agronomic, environmental, and industrial benefits. Crop residues remaining on sugarcane fields provide numerous ecosystem services including nutrient recycling, soil biodiversity, water storage, carbon accumulation, control of soil erosion, and weed infestation. Furthermore, several studies reported higher sugarcane production under straw retention on the field, while few suggest that straw may jeopardize biomass production in cold regions and under some specific soil conditions. Pest control is among the parameters favored by straw removal, while N2O emissions are increased only if straw is associated with the application of N fertilizer and vinasse. An appropriate recommendation, which is clearly site specific, should be based on a minimum mass of straw on the field to provide those benefits. Overall, this review indicates that most of the agronomic and environmental benefits are achieved when at least 7 Mg ha−1 of dry straw is maintained on the soil surface. However, modeling efforts are of paramount importance to assess the magnitude and rates of straw removal considering the several indicators involved in this complex equation, so that an accurate straw recovery rate could be provided to producers and industry toward greater sustainability.

show abstract

“…They suggested that the impact of minimum and reduced tillage on organic C loss was lower than that observed for conventional operation. A study by Corradi et al (2013) on green cane harvest showed higher CO 2 emissions with no crop residues on the soil surface (bare soil) compared to soil covered with straw. The authors concluded that the conservation of sugarcane crop residues on the soil after harvest could have an impact on soil C conservation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial and Temporal Variability of Soil CO2 Flux in Sugarcane Green Harvest Systems

Tavares

Souza

Scala

et al. 2016

Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The sugarcane green harvest system, characterized by mechanized harvesting and the absence of crop burning, affects soil quality by increasing crop residue on the soil surface after harvest; thus, it contributes to improving the physical, chemical, and microbiological properties and influences the soil carbon content and CO 2 flux (FCO 2 ). This study aimed to evaluate the spatial and temporal variability of soil FCO 2 in sugarcane green harvest systems. The experiment was conducted in two areas of sugarcane in São Paulo, Brazil: the first had a 5-year history of sugarcane green harvest (SG-5) and the second had a longer history of 10 years (SG-10). The temporal FCO 2 were evaluated in the dry and rainy periods, and spatial variability in the dry period, and related to soil chemical and physical properties, including organic C porosity, bulk density, soil penetration resistance, mean weight diameter of soil aggregates, clay, P, S, Ca, Mg and Fe. The temporal variability indicated no differences between the dry and rainy periods in SG-10, while in SG-5 soil moisture was increased by 33 % in the rainy period. The spatial variability indicated a different pattern from the temporal one, where FCO 2 in SG-10 was correlated with soil temperature, air-filled pore space, total porosity, soil moisture, and the Ca and Mg contents; in the SG-5 area, FCO 2 was correlated with soil mean weight diameter of soil aggregates and the sulfur content.

show abstract

Crop residues on short-term CO2 emissions in sugarcane production areas

Cited by 13 publications

References 24 publications

Crop residue harvest for bioenergy production and its implications on soil functioning and plant growth: A review

Crop residue harvest for bioenergy production and its implications on soil functioning and plant growth: A review

Agronomic and environmental implications of sugarcane straw removal: a major review

Spatial and Temporal Variability of Soil CO2 Flux in Sugarcane Green Harvest Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About