Full accounting of the greenhouse gas (CO2, N2O, CH4) budget of nine European grassland sites

Soussana, Jean‐François; Allard, Vincent; Pilegaard, Kim; Ambus, Per; Amman, Caspar; Campbell, Claire; Ceschia, Éric; Clifton‐Brown, John; Czóbel, Szilárd; Domingues, R.; Fléchard, Christophe; Fuhrer, Jürg; Hensen, A.; Horváth, László; Jones, Mike; Kasper, G.J.; Martin, Cécile; Nagy, Zoltán; Neftel, A.; Raschi, A.; Baronti, Silvia; Rees, Robert M.; Skiba, U.; Stefani, P.; Manca, Giovanni; Sutton, Mark A.; Tuba, Zoltán; Валентини, Р.

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.022

Cited by 438 publications

(368 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

328

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our approach to treat cattle as exporters of biomass-C and importers of excreta-C differs from other studies of grazed grasslands, where the cattle are considered as part of the ecosystem (Soussana et al, 2007a;Rutledge et al, 2015). The management practices of this dairy ecosystem were well suited to this approach and uncertainty around the spatial distribution of cattle respiration during grazing was avoided.…”

Section: Carbon Budget Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(3), it had to be excluded from the C budgets to avoid double-counting. This makes it difficult to compare our NEP results directly with the majority of grazed grassland sites, where NEP includes cattle respiration (Soussana et al, 2007a;Rutledge et al 2015). However, the NECB results can still be compared directly.…”

Section: Carbon Budget Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The former approach is suitable where grazing is extensive and grazing periods stretch over several weeks (e.g. Soussana et al, 2007a) or where insufficient information is available on the animals' locations and movements over time (e.g. Mudge et al, 2011).…”

Section: The Carbon Budget Of a Pasture Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Carbon budgets for an irrigated intensively grazed dairy pasture and an unirrigated winter-grazed pasture

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Intensification of pastoral agriculture is occurring rapidly across New Zealand, including increasing use of irrigation and fertiliser application in some regions. While this enables greater gross primary production (GPP) and livestock grazing intensity, the consequences for the net ecosystem carbon budget (NECB) of the pastures are poorly known. Here, we determined the NECB over one year for an irrigated, fertilised and rotationally grazed dairy pasture and a neighbouring unirrigated, unfertilised, wintergrazed pasture. Primary terms in the NECB calculation were: net ecosystem production (NEP), biomass carbon removed by grazing cows and carbon (C) input from their excreta. Annual NEP was measured using the eddy-covariance method. Carbon removal was estimated with plate-meter measurements calibrated against biomass collections, preand post-grazing. Excreta deposition was calculated from animal feed intake. The intensively managed pasture gained C (NECB = 103 ± 42 g C m −2 yr −1 ) but would have been subject to a non-significant C loss if cattle excreta had not been returned to the pasture. The unirrigated pasture was C-neutral (NECB = −13 ± 23 g C m −2 yr −1 ). While annual GPP of the former was almost twice that of the latter (2679 vs. 1372 g C m −2 yr −1 ), ecosystem respiration differed by only 68 % between the two pastures (2271 vs. 1352 g C m −2 yr −1 ). The ratio of GPP to the total annual water input of the irrigated pasture was 37 % greater than that of the unirrigated pasture, i.e. the former used the water input more efficiently than the latter to produce biomass. The NECB results agree qualitatively with those from many other eddy-covariance studies of grazed grasslands, but they seem to be at odds with long-term carbon-stock studies of other New Zealand pastures.

show abstract

Section: Carbon Budget Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Carbon Budget Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Carbon budgets for an irrigated intensively grazed dairy pasture and an unirrigated winter-grazed pasture

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Europe, grassland is one of the dominant land uses, and the major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, with fluxes closely associated with management practices (Soussana et al, 2007). In 2011, about 38% of European agricultural land was devoted to permanent grassland (FAOSTAT, 2015); while in Ireland, in the same year, this figure was over 82% (for improved grassland) increasing to 92% upon inclusion of rough grazing (CSO, 2012).…”

Section: N 2 O Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing nitrous oxide emissions by changing N fertiliser use from calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) to urea based formulations

Harty

Forrestal

Watson

et al. 2016

Science of The Total Environment

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

*Corresponding authors karl.richards@teagasc.ieHighlights  The N 2 O emission factor for CAN was substantially higher than the IPCC default and highly variable between sites and across years. Urea products decreased direct N 2 O emissions from CAN on average by 80%  Switching from CAN to urea products reduces both N 2 O emissions and fertiliser costs. 3 AbstractThe accelerating use of synthetic nitrogen (N) fertilisers, to meet the world's growing food demand, is the primary driver for increased atmospheric concentrations of nitrous oxide (N 2 O). The IPCC default emission factor (EF) for N 2 O from soils is 1% of the N applied, irrespective of its form. However, N 2 O emissions tend to be higher from nitrate-containing fertilisers e.g. calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) compared to urea, particularly in regions, which have mild, wet climates and high organic matter soils. Urea can be an inefficient N source due to NH 3 volatilisation, but nitrogen stabilisers (urease and nitrification inhibitors) can improve its efficacy. This study evaluated the impact of switching fertiliser formulation from calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) to urea-based products, as a potential mitigation strategy to reduce N 2 O emissions at six temperate grassland sites on the island of Ireland. The surface applied formulations included CAN, urea and urea with the urease inhibitor N-(nbutyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) and/or the nitrification inhibitor dicyandiamide (DCD). Results showed that N 2 O emissions were significantly affected by fertiliser formulation, soil type and climatic conditions. The direct N 2 O emission factor (EF) from CAN averaged 1.49% overall sites, but was highly variable, ranging from 0.58% to 3.81.Amending urea with NBPT, to reduce ammonia volatilisation, resulted in an average EF of 0.40% (ranging from 0.21 to 0.69%)-compared to an average EF of 0.25% for urea (ranging from 0.1 to 0.49%), with both fertilisers significantly lower and less variable than CAN.Cumulative N 2 O emissions from urea amended with both NBPT and DCD were not significantly different from background levels. Switching from CAN to stabilised urea formulations was found to be an effective strategy to reduce N 2 O emissions, particularly in wet, temperate grassland. 4Key words nitrous oxide mitigation; emission factor; calcium ammonium nitrate; stabilised urea; nitrification inhibitor Dicyandiamide (DCD); urease inhibitor N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT).5

show abstract

“…It is affected by grassland type and age (Byrne et al, 2007), changes in land use such as from cropping to grassland, and burning (Suyker and Verma, 2001). It may also vary with annual rainfall, temperature and radiation (Hunt et al, 2004;Soussana et al, 2007).…”

Section: The Multifunctional Roles Of Grasslandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of grasslands for animal production and other functions: a review on management and methodological progress in the tropics

Boval

Dixon

2012

Animal

159

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global importance of grasslands is indicated by their extent; they comprise some 26% of total land area and 80% of agriculturally productive land. The majority of grasslands are located in tropical developing countries where they are particularly important to the livelihoods of some one billion poor peoples. Grasslands clearly provide the feed base for grazing livestock and thus numerous high-quality foods, but such livestock also provide products such as fertilizer, transport, traction, fibre and leather. In addition, grasslands provide important services and roles including as water catchments, biodiversity reserves, for cultural and recreational needs, and potentially a carbon sink to alleviate greenhouse gas emissions. Inevitably, such functions may conflict with management for production of livestock products. Much of the increasing global demand for meat and milk, particularly from developing countries, will have to be supplied from grassland ecosystems, and this will provide difficult challenges. Increased production of meat and milk generally requires increased intake of metabolizable energy, and thus increased voluntary intake and/or digestibility of diets selected by grazing animals. These will require more widespread and effective application of improved management. Strategies to improve productivity include fertilizer application, grazing management, greater use of crop by-products, legumes and supplements and manipulation of stocking rate and herbage allowance. However, it is often difficult to predict the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of such strategies, particularly in tropical developing country production systems. Evaluation and on-going adjustment of grazing systems require appropriate and reliable assessment criteria, but these are often lacking. A number of emerging technologies may contribute to timely low-cost acquisition of quantitative information to better understand the soil–pasture–animal interactions and animal management in grassland systems. Development of remote imaging of vegetation, global positioning technology, improved diet markers, near IR spectroscopy and modelling provide improved tools for knowledge-based decisions on the productivity constraints of grazing animals. Individual electronic identification of animals offers opportunities for precision management on an individual animal basis for improved productivity. Improved outcomes in the form of livestock products, services and/or other outcomes from grasslands should be possible, but clearly a diversity of solutions are needed for the vast range of environments and social circumstances of global grasslands.

show abstract

Full accounting of the greenhouse gas (CO2, N2O, CH4) budget of nine European grassland sites

Cited by 438 publications

References 38 publications

Carbon budgets for an irrigated intensively grazed dairy pasture and an unirrigated winter-grazed pasture

Carbon budgets for an irrigated intensively grazed dairy pasture and an unirrigated winter-grazed pasture

Reducing nitrous oxide emissions by changing N fertiliser use from calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) to urea based formulations

The importance of grasslands for animal production and other functions: a review on management and methodological progress in the tropics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About