Importance of developing regional greenhouse gas emission factors
May. 20, 2016•0 likes
2 likes
Be the first to like this
Show More
•392 views
views
Total views
0
On Slideshare
0
From embeds
0
Number of embeds
0
Download to read offline
Report
Science
Presented by David E. Pelster, John Goopy, Lutz Merbold and Klaus Butterbach-Bahl at the Greenhouse Gas Inventory Roundtable Meeting, ILRI, Nairobi, 3-4 May 2016
Importance of developing regional greenhouse gas emission factors
Importance of developing regional greenhouse
gas emission factors
David E. Pelster, John Goopy, Lutz Merbold and Klaus Butterbach-Bahl
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Roundtable Meeting
ILRI, Nairobi, 3-4 May 2016
How do we calculate the emissions?
From FAO. Global Livestock Environmental Accounting Model (GLEAM)
How do we calculate the emissions?
From Opio et al. 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains
Richards et al. in prep
Why we need empirical studies
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1,000PredictedCO2ekg/ha
Measured CO2e kg/ha
Maize Zimbabwe
Maize China
Maize Tanzania
Tea Kenya
Vegetables Kenya or Tanzania
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
PredictedbyCFT(CO2ekgha-1season-1)
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems
Models likely using incorrect emission factors
Hickman et al. 2014
Why are the emission factors incorrect?
• Limited dataset
•Models use emission factors from other regions
•These other regions have different climate / soils
/ management / animal breeds, etc
What do the preliminary data look like?
From livestock manure on
rangelands:
• N2O
• IPCC estimates: 2% of grazing cattle
manure N
• Preliminary data => between 10 and 40%
of IPCC (EF from 0.2 to 0.8%)
• CH4
• Between 9 and 25% of IPCC emission
factors Pelster et al. 2016
From cropping systems:
• N2O
• IPCC estimates: 1% of applied N
• Preliminary data => between 1 and 10%
of IPCC estimates (0.01 and 0.1% of
applied N) (Hickman et al. 2015); or
• Low fertilizer application rates resulted
in no noticeable increase in N2O
emissions (Rosenstock et al. 2016; Pelster et al. 2016)
• An on-going study in sugar cane has
similar results
Why is this important?
• National inventories for IPCC
• Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA)
• LEDs
• Financing
• Verification. i.e. Is “climate smart agriculture” really climate smart?
“Climate Smart Agriculture”
• No-till (or conservation tillage) is often
promoted as a “climate smart practice”
• There are current projects that promote
no-till to improve maize yields and
sequester carbon
Rusinamhodzi et al. 2011. Agronomy Sust. Developm.
“Climate Smart Agriculture”
• No-till (or conservation tillage) is often
promoted as a “climate smart practice”
• There are current projects that promote
no-till to improve maize yields and
sequester carbon
• But…. Do they truly mitigate climate
change?
• Need to understand and account for the
local conditions
Six et al. 2002. Agronomie
Angers and Eriksen-Hamel 2008. SSSAJ
Poirier et al. 2009. SSSAJ
The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI.
better lives through livestock
ilri.org
For more information contact:
dpelster@cgiar.org
Editor's Notes
There MUST be a CGIAR logo or a CRP logo. You can copy and paste the logo you need from the final slide of this presentation. Then you can delete that final slide
To replace a photo above, copy and paste this link in your browser: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilri/sets/72157632057087650/detail/
Find a photo you like and the right size, copy and paste it in the block above.
FPCM stands for “fat and protein corrected milk”
Predictions from cool farm tool
Similar issues were found with the Ex-Act model as well
Hickman paper goes up to 100 kg N per ha; Todd’s does as well, while our landscape plots had application rates up to 30 kg per ha.
Also, data from Theodora’s work, indicates an emission factor of about 0.5%... Which is consistent with all the others (up to 100 kg N per ha)
Rusinamhodzi et al. Rain-fed maize production in semi-arid and sub-humid climates
NTR = No tillage with rotation.
Rusinamhodzi et al. Rain-fed maize production in semi-arid and sub-humid climates
NTR = No tillage with rotation.
Six et al. Soil organic matter, biota and aggregation in temperate and tropical soils – Effects of no tillage
The farmers’ reasons for switching from conventional tillage (CT) to NT differed somewhat between the Great Plains and the Corn Belt. In the Great Plains, the high moisture retention under NT was a major incentive for adoption of NT practices in this semi-arid region [14, 41, 236, 261]. The high moisture retention allowed farmers to reduce the frequency of fallow, leading to cropping intensification. In the Corn Belt soil erosion control was a major incentive for NT practices. In both regions, the economical advantages of NT have played a role in the adoption of the practice [141].
For Vincent’s study, it was just on one site, humid climate with clay loam soils