• Save
The ecological cost of doing agricultural business
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

The ecological cost of doing agricultural business

on

  • 380 views

"The ecological cost of doing agricultural business: ...

"The ecological cost of doing agricultural business:
Tradeoffs in the Amazon between agricultural production and ecosystem functioning"

Presented at the University of Minnesota, 2 Oct 2013, as a pre-thesis public seminar and as a portion of my preliminary oral PhD exam.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
380
Views on SlideShare
380
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

The ecological cost of doing agricultural business The ecological cost of doing agricultural business Presentation Transcript

  • The cost of doing business ecological agricultural > > Christine S. O’Connell Pre-Thesis Seminar 2 October 2013
  • Amazon rundown: Background Key questions
  • The Amazon is an Enormous gear 1
  • Amazonia’s biomass stores 100 billion tonnes of carbon Saatchi et al. (2007)
  • of precipitation in Amazonia is returned to the atmosphere by plants. 60% Brienen et al. (2012)
  • This plant evapotranspiration balances excess solar energy West et al. (2011)
  • West et al. (2011) High net energy Most of it lost via plantspumping water, notthrough surface heating
  • Whirlwind on deforested land, Mato Grosso, BRA
  • Human use is rapid and changing 2
  • of the Amazon is deforested 17% Nepstad et al. (1999)
  • …much of that for agricultural export commodities DeFries et al. (2013), MacDonald et al. in prep
  • Brazilian soybean yields rose by 50% from 1990 to 2008 Ray et al. (2013)
  • And head of cattle in the Brazilian Amazon rose by 100% Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2008)
  • There is no one Amazon ecology 3
  • Let’s take a quick tour of the Amazon… - Total biomass ~= 130 MgC/ha - NPP disputed, possibly ~= 7 MgC/ha/yr - Tree diversity as Fisher’s α ~= 60 - Total biomass ~= 175 MgC/ha - NPP ~= 10 MgC/ha/yr - Tree diversity as Fisher’s α ~= 200 Saatchi et al. (2011), Aragao et al. (2009), Del Grosso et al. (2008), Ter Steege et al. (2003) NPP = net primary productivity; LULCC = land-use/land-cover change
  • Let’s take a quick tour of the Amazon… - Total biomass ~= 130 MgC/ha - NPP disputed, possibly ~= 7 MgC/ha/yr - Tree diversity as Fisher’s α ~= 60 - Total biomass ~= 175 MgC/ha - NPP ~= 10 MgC/ha/yr - Tree diversity as Fisher’s α ~= 200 Monfreda et al. (2008), Aragao et al. (2009), Del Grosso et al. (2008), Ter Steege et al. (2003) - Total biomass ~= 175 MgC/ha - NPP ~= 10 MgC/ha/yr - Tree diversity as Fisher’s α ~= 200 - Low amounts of LULCC - Total biomass ~= 130 MgC/ha - NPP disputed, possibly ~= 7 MgC/ha/yr - Tree diversity as Fisher’s α ~= 60 - High amounts of LULCC NPP = net primary productivity; LULCC = land-use/land-cover change
  • Amazon rundown: Background Key questions
  • The Big Gap
  • How will Amazonia’s role in the earth system be affected by human use? And What are the Tradeoffs?
  • Tradeoffs, here, compare the ecological losses to the agricultural gains from LULCC
  • Tradeoffs, here, compare the ecological losses to the agricultural gains from LULCC A similar calculation yields: 3/125 = 24*10-3 Mg soy gained/Mg C lost/ ha (30% more ag per unit C lost) Modeled ag gains Soybean fields yield 3.1 Mg/ha Modeled C losses Forest à ag transition loses 170 MgC/ha Ex. Ag/C Tradeoff 3.1/170 = 18*10-3 Mg soy gained/Mg C lost/ha Monfreda et al. (2008), O’Connell et al. in prep
  • Q What are the tradeoffs to extensified (expanding) agriculture?
  • Q FIRST: How do different ecological tradeoffs vary across space?
  • We combined data from remote sensing, model output, and geostatistical datasets to assess spatial tradeoff variation •  Changes in carbon (C) stocks •  Energy balance regulation •  Habitat quality •  Agricultural productivity
  • O’Connell et al. in prep C stock reductions relate to precip and flooding
  • Local drying post-LULCC is greater in the seasonal E O’Connell et al. in prep
  • O’Connell et al. in prep …and local warming is higher in the same area
  • All 3 taxa sets have highest diversity in the Andes O’Connell et al. in prep
  • O’Connell et al. in prep Tradeoffs consider both gains and losses Calories gained / change in ecosystem property
  • Climate Reg; Habitat; C Stock O’Connell et al. in prep
  • The tradeoffs of agricultural extensification depend on which environmental variable is being prioritized and the biophysical regional context.
  • Q SECOND: How do future LULC scenarios compare to an Amazonia managed for tradeoff efficiency?
  • Estimate calories produced in 2050 from a projected LULC arrangement Step 1 Step 2 Solve for LULC in Amazonia that produces the same number of calories at least cost to ecological functioning Soares-Filho et al. (2006)
  • Expected Results Business-As-Usual Optimized MeanReductioninBiomass CarbonStocks/ha Effects on C stocks to produce XX agricultural output Same agricultural output with a lower ecological impact when managing fortradeoffs
  • Amazon rundown: Background Key questions
  • Q What are the tradeoffs to intensified (industrial) agriculture?
  • Q FIRST: How is intensified agriculture changing nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions?
  • N2O, nitrous oxide, is a greenhouse gas with 300 times the warming potential of CO2. •  Emitted by multiple distributed microbial processes •  Regulated by temp, pH, H2O, and availability of oxygen, organic carbon, labile nitrogen •  Intensified agricultural management alters N availability – now in Amazonia
  • •  Baseline forest Extractable N pools: ~4-5 mg N/kg dry soil •  Soybean cropland N inputs: N-fixing crop (~170 kg N/ha), lower C and H2O •  Soy/maize double cropping N inputs: N fertilizer addition (~60 kg N/ha), lower C and H2O Treatments vary by LULC
  • Field measurement of N pools and fluxes designed to quantify spatial and temporal variation
  • J F M A M J J A S O N D (--------2014--------) (--------------2013--------------) Forest (control) Highest Soy/Maize Middle Soy Lowest J F M A M J J A S O N D (--------2014--------) (--------------2013--------------) Annual N2O Emissions Forest (control) Middle Soy/Maize Highest Soy Lowest Annual N2O Emissions Expected Results N2Ofluxes (μgNm−2hr−1) N2Ofluxes (μgNm−2hr−1)
  • Intensifying Amazonian croplands via double cropping with N fertilizer is a novel land use with poorly understood N2O emissions consequences.
  • Q SECOND: How are N2O emissions from intensification affecting the regional GHG budget?
  • From Galford et al. (2010) Work with collaborators to quantify LULC trend Step 1 Use field results with a process-based model to correct for abiotic factors Step 2 Step 3 Scale across region
  • Intensification in eastern Amazonia yields double the agricultural production. But perhaps at an ecological cost of rising greenhouse gas emissions …a tradeoff specific to intensified agriculture.
  • Q What do the ecological tradeoffs of agriculture imply for governance and policy?
  • Thanks very much Photo credits Flickr CC Users CIFOR Billtacular Jacsonquerubin flinner! Carine06 LeoFFreitas terrydu ggallice Icelight MODIS images via NASA Obrigada to The Foley, Polasky, Powers and Hobbie lab groups BCE: Aaron, Charlotte, Jane, Kristen, Tricia Supporting agencies, institutions and collaborators below, especially the IPAM field team Friends and family Christine S. O’Connell, coconn@umn.edu, UMN EEB/IonE
  • Backup slides
  • Intensified agricultural management is changing N availability via fertilizer use …increasingly now in the Amazon
  • •  Baseline forest Extractable N pools: ~4-5 mg N/kg dry soil Organic C: rel. high Soil moisture: rel. high N inputs: N-fixing tree species •  Soybean cropland •  Soy/maize double cropping Treatments vary by LULC
  • •  Baseline forest •  Soybean cropland Extractable N pools: rel. lower? Organic C: rel. lower Soil moisture: rel. lower N inputs: N-fixing crop (~170 kg N/ha) •  Soy/maize double cropping Treatments vary by LULC
  • •  Baseline forest •  Soybean cropland •  Soy/maize double cropping Extractable N pools: rel. lower? Organic C: rel. lower Soil moisture: re. lower N inputs: N fertilizer addition (~60 kg N/ha) Treatments vary by LULC
  • West et al. (2011) High net energy Most of it lost via plantspumping water, notthrough surface heating
  • Deforestation has become uncoupled from commodity production in some portions of the Brazilian Amazon Macedo et al. (2012)
  • Supplemental  Table  2:  Current  harvested  area  and  quan6ty  produced  for  key   crops  in  Brazil  and  the  Brazilian  Legal  Amazon  (data:  IGBE).    Key  crops  here  are   Brazil’s  top  ten  crops  by  harvested  area  (2009-­‐11  average)  and  banana  and   tomato,  which  are  in  Brazil’s  top  ten  crops  by  produc6on  (2009-­‐2011  average).     O’Connell et al. in prep
  • Macedo et al. (2012), INPE Annual deforestation, Brazilian AmazonAreadeforested(km2) Peaked in the mid-2000s
  • 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 Amazon Next Six Largest Rivers AverageDischarge(m3/s) Amazon Ganges Congo Orinoco Yangtze Parana Yenisei 209,000 m3/s The water flow out of the Amazon River is greater than the world’s next six largest rivers combined 191,000 m3/s (total)
  • Agricultural yield, main text
  • Biodiv taxa maps, supplemental fig
  • Climate reg, supplemental fig Net  Radia)on   Latent  Heat  Flux   Sensible  Heat  Flux   Natural  Vegeta)on  Soybean  Grass   0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 W·m-2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 W·m-2 Degrees Celsius 0                          1.3                      2.7                      4.0                        5.3                      6.7                      8.0                    9.3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 W·m-2 mm H2O 0                          0.8                      1.5                      2.3                      3.1                      3.8                      4.6                    5.4
  • Climate reg, supplemental fig -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 W·m-2 mm H2O -1.1 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.1 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 W·m-2 Degrees Celsius -2.0 -1.3 -0.7 0 0.7 1.3 2.0 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 W·m-2 mm H2O -1.3 -1.1 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 W·m-2 Degrees Celsius -2.3 -2.0 -1.7 -1.3 -1.0 -0.7 -0.3 0
  • We combined data from remote sensing, model output, and geostatistical datasets to assess tradeoff variation across space Carbon stock Combined satellite data and land-use information Regional climate Process-based model runs Habitat quality Statistical species range models Agricultural production Regression models using public agricultural data
  • Chapin, Matson, Vitousek (2011)
  • Venterea et al. (2012)
  • Venterea et al. (2012)
  • We are limited by ideas, not by tools - Peter Groffman