Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Soussana jean francois

687 views

Published on

presentación Keynote en el workshop REMEDIA 2012 sobre reducción de gases de efecto invernadero en el sector agroforestal

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Soussana jean francois

  1. 1. Bilbao, March 8, 2012 How can we manage Europe’s terrestrial greenhouse gas balance? Jean-François Soussana
  2. 2. Outline1. Context: climate negotiations and food security2. International and European research programing3. The land based carbon and GHG balance of Europe4. Comparing arable, pasture and forest systems5. GHG balance of grazing systems6. The GHG balance of farms7. Vulnerability to climate change
  3. 3. Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use (AFOLU)account for one third of global greenhouse gas emissions 89 % of the global technical mitigation potential in agriculture would be through soil carbon sequestration (IPCC, 2007)
  4. 4. Lifecycle analysis of products leading to GHG emissions and removals Cross-sectoral and cross-boundaries view
  5. 5. Climate negotiations• In 2007, the EU commited to an overall 20 % reduction in GHG emissions in 2020 (compared to 1990)• Agriculture is committed to a 10 % reduction with variable share of efforts across countries• Modest progress in the UN climate negotiations: International exchanges of views (SBSTA) on the role of agriculture have been decided in Durban
  6. 6. Livestock, a threat to climateLivestock emits: 1/3 of anthropogenic CH4 (enteric fermentation) 2/3 of anthropogenic N2O, the great majority from manure 9 % of anthropogenic CO2 (deforestation) (FAO, 2006)Global production of meat and milk are projected to more than double by 2050Food labels in some countries providing carbon ‘footprints’
  7. 7. (J Delincé, 2011)
  8. 8. (from Tara Garnett, Food Climate Research Network, UK)
  9. 9. Role of food habits DUALINEPoor food habits could lead to lower GHG emissions for women (not for men)
  10. 10. Outline1. Context: climate negotiations and food security2. International and European research programing3. The land based carbon and GHG balance of Europe4. Comparing arable, pasture and forest systems5. Vulnerability to climate change6. The GHG balance of farms
  11. 11. Global Research Alliance Livestock Research Group Croplands Research Group Paddy Rice Research Group
  12. 12. Joint Programing in ResearchAgriculture and Climate Change (FACCE JPI) www.faccejpi.com 12
  13. 13. FACCE-JPIScoping Mitigation National National inventories inventories MRV MRV Storylines, Storylines, ICOS, ICOS,Policy optionsPolicy options inventories inventories Conceptual Conceptual Framework Framework LCAs LCAs Technical Technical Consumer Consumer measures measures behaviours behaviours Farming Farming Systems, Systems, Land use Land use
  14. 14. ICOS – Infrastructure for aCarbon Observation System
  15. 15. ANAee Analysis of EcosystemsA large European infrastructure on (agro) ecosystems
  16. 16. AnimalChange (FP7)Global and regional livestock storylines and scenarios under climate changeDetailed assessment of mitigation and adaptation options for Europe, Brasil and three regions in AfricaTechnical potential, economical potential, barriers to implementationField, animal, farm and regional scale modelling
  17. 17. EC FP7 ANIMALCHANGE partners
  18. 18. Direct GHG emissions from livestock 2.8 Animal food and GHG emissions 2.6 2.4 Animal food Direct GHG emissions from livestock Direct GHG emissions per unit animal food protein 2.2Standardized data 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year
  19. 19. Direct GHG emissions per unit food protein GHG per animal protein Mean GHG per food protein GHG per plant protein
  20. 20. Outline1. Context: climate negotiations and food security2. International and European research programing3. The land based carbon and GHG balance of Europe4. Comparing arable, pasture and forest systems5. Vulnerability to climate change6. The GHG balance of farms
  21. 21. Towards a full accounting of GHG fluxesfrom agriculture, forestry and land use?• Inventories • Unknowns – CH4: enteric – How do emission fermentation; manure factors vary? management – Is there a role of – N2O: agricultural soils; climatic variability? manure management. – Are soils sources or – Forest carbon stock sinks of carbon under changes constant management? – Soil C stock change through land use change and => Improve scientific management understanding
  22. 22. Land and oceans store carbon Large interannual variability in global land C sink (Canadell et al.,2007, PNAS)
  23. 23. An assessment of the continental carbon balance of Europe 1000 km Upscaling 10 km Prediction ha Downscaling dmµm Verification CarboEurope IP Funded and coordinated by the European Commission DG XII Research
  24. 24. Land based carbon sequestration in Europe (2000-2004) UNCERTAINTY (Schulze et al., Nature Geosciences, 2009)
  25. 25. Land based greenhouse gas balance in Europe including C sequestration UNCERTAINTY* CH4 and N2O fluxes are expressed as carbon in CO2-equivalents with a greenhousewarming potential of 100 year horizon (Schulze et al., Nature Geosciences, 2009)
  26. 26. Summary of the continentalgreenhouse gas balance for EU 25• The land surface sink reaches -111 Million tonnes of carbon per year, which is 11% of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels.• However, since the emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are relatively higher in the European Union the land surface emerges as a greenhouse gas source of 34 Million tonnes of carbon per year.• This effectively increases the emissions from fossil fuel burning by another 3%. (Schulze et al., Nature Geosciences, 2009)
  27. 27. Outline1. Context: climate negotiations and food security2. International and European research programing3. The land based carbon and GHG balance of Europe4. Comparing arable, pasture and forest systems5. Vulnerability to climate change6. The GHG balance of farms
  28. 28. Ecosystem flux measurements
  29. 29. Simultaneous measurementsof CO2 and H2O exchanges
  30. 30. Components of a managed ecosystem carbon budgetNEE: Net Ecosystem Exchange, balanceNBP: Net Biome Productivity, C Atmospheric C balance
  31. 31. The balance between gross photosynthesis (GPP), plant (Ra) and soil organism (Rh) respiration in contrasted European ecosystems Sink Source GPP Ra Rh Cropland Grassland Forest C balance: NEP -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 -2 -1 g C m yr (After Schulze et al., Nature Geosciences, 2009)
  32. 32. The balance between carbon and other greenhouse gases in contrasted European ecosystems Sink Source Cropland Grassland NEP Harvest Forest Manure Fire DOC/DIC GHG balance Other GHG -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 g C m-2 yr-1 (After Schulze et al., Nature Geosciences, 2009 & Siemens et al. Global Change Biology, in press)
  33. 33. Dissolved organic C leaching (Kindler et al., Global Change Biol., 2011)
  34. 34. EU25 terrestrial greenhouse gas balance* including C sequestration GHG balance of agriculture in EU25 including C sequestration Forest biomass Forest soil Grassland Cropland SINK SOURCE Peatlands Land use change Carbon trade balanceCarbon to rivers and seas Fossil fuel agriculture CH4 agriculture CH4 wetlands N2O agriculture GHG flux -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Megatons C per year * CH4 and N2O fluxes as carbon in CO2-equivalents with a GHG warming potential of 100 year horizon
  35. 35. The GHG balance of the agriculture sector in Europe GHG balance of agriculture in EU25 including C sequestration N2O CH4 agricultureFossil fuel agriculture Drained peat Cropland Grassland -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 Mt C yr-1 Grassland C sequestration would play a significant role for the European agriculture sector (After Schulze et al., 2009 Nature Geosciences)
  36. 36. Outline1. Context: climate negotiations and food security2. International and European research programing3. The land based carbon and GHG balance of Europe4. Comparing arable, pasture and forest systems5. Carbon balance of grasslands6. Vulnerability to climate change7. The GHG balance of farms
  37. 37. The C balance of a grassland ecosystem NEE (NBP)Carbon balance (Net Biome Productivity) :NBP = (NEE - FCH4-C) + (Fmanure - Fharvest – Fanimal-products) – Fleach (Soussana et al., 2010, Animal)
  38. 38. C sequestration in a temperate pasture (tC ha-1 yr-1) CH4 Herbivore CO2 respiration Gross primary 0.2 2.1 19 productivity Herbivore Grazing Vegetation Végétation 3 7 +0.05 0 Shoot 0.7 Animal respiration excreta Root turnover Rhizodeposition 9 Litter Soil 9.2 Soil C sequestration: +0.5 Below-ground respiration DOC, DIC ?Sown grassland with intensive grazing (Soussana et al., Soil Use Manag., 2004)
  39. 39. Carbon sequestration (NBP) at 10 European grassland sites Carbon sink - Carbon source -• The less carbon is used, the more is returned to the soil, which increases C sequestration• Nitrogen supply also favours carbon sequestration (Soussana et al. Agriculture, Ecosys. Environment, 2007)
  40. 40. Disturbance induced changes in C cycling (Klumpp, Falcimage & Soussana, 2007, AGEE; Klumpp, Soussana & Falcimagne, 2007, Biogeosciences) Soil C sequestrationGrassland mesocosm experiment (g C m-2 yr-1)) A trade-off between abovegroundproduction and belowground C sequestration Cutting disturbancei) Disturbance reduces mean residence time of C Above-ground net primaryn soil fractions >200 µ productivity (g C m-2 yr-1) Compressor MRT= 22 month Cutting CO2 scrubber disturbance MRT = 31 month Steady state 13CO2 labelling
  41. 41. Separating direct role of disturbance from plant traits: Response & Effect C sequestration (gC m-2) b2, direct disturbance effect aE2, trait mediated effect Root density (Klumpp & Soussana, Global Change Biol., 2009)
  42. 42. Disturbance increase: a cascade of effects. Disturbance 5. Change in plant species 1. Photosynthesis and root composition biomass declines 2. Decline in fungi and 4. Increase in N available increase in Gram+ bacteria for plants and in 0.60 aboveground production.Fraction of total PLFA 1.0 0.50 LL 0.40 0.8 fungal LH gram- 0.30 0.6 gram+ NNI 0.20 0.4 0.10 LL LH 0.2 Disturbance treatment 2.5 0.0 LL 2.0 LH 2003 a a mg C g-1 soil a fPOM old 1.5 a 1.0 b b a 0.5 b 3. Acceleration of unlabelled 0.0 POM decomposition 0 5 10 15 20 25 Month after start of 13C labelling Klumpp, Fontaine, Soussana, Journal of Ecology (2009)
  43. 43. Climate x management interactions for 0.1 80 Reco (gC m ² week ) -1 c. 60 annual C sequestration - 40 20 0 Extensive management sequesters more C in wet -20 years, but is less resilient to drought than intensive GPP (gC m ² week ) -1 I nt ensive -40 plot Ext ensive plot management:High st ock ing densit y : 1 LSU ha - 1 Low st ock ing densit y: 0.5 LSU ha -1 - -60 N, P, K fer t iliser No f er t iliser supply Extensive: higher LAI and ET, less available N. -80 d. -100 Laqueuille site, INRA 100 Cumulative NEE (gC m-²) 0 SOURCE -100 -200 -300 -400 SINK e. Summer droughts -500 1000 f. Water fluxes 800 Latent Heat (W m ) -2 600 400 200 0 250 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 g. 200 (Klumpp et al., Global Change Biol., 2011)
  44. 44. Annual C balance of 28 grassland sitesC source C sink (n=110 site years, mean ± s.e) 21 sites out of 28 were, on average, C sinks for the atmosphere Leaching of dissolved carbon (DOC, biogenic DIC, 4 sites): 29 gC m -2 yr-1 (Kindler et al., 2011, GCB)
  45. 45. Simple C cycle model (5 state variables, 3 soil parameters) Ecosystem respiration, Reco GPP Ra Rh-animal Rh-litter Rh-active Rh-slow (1-K1)GPP (d+k CH4)Cintake f(T,P) (1-K2) f(T,P) (1-K2) K2 f(T,P) kslow Cplant Clitter Cactive Cslow Cpassive 1 f(T,P) K2 f(T,P) K22 f(T,P) kstab Cintake (1-d-kCH4)Cintake Measured Cexport Cimport Modelled (Soussana et al., in preparation)
  46. 46. Best fit for turnover of slow C Turnover rate (Kslow) of slow C declines with N availability This is consistent with the priming effect and is not accounted for by classical soil models. n=15, r2 = 0.81, P< 0.0001
  47. 47. Simulated vs. measured annual C sequestrationC balance is inferred from GPP, climate, management and soil texture
  48. 48. Carbon and GHG balance of grazingsystems (grassland and farm buildings) At barn FN2O FCO2 FCH4 Fanimal-products FCO2@barn Fanimal-products@barn FCH 4@barn Flabile C losses 290 5 5 98 9 47 Fharvest FN2O Fmanure@barn 43 237 83 Fmanure IPCC, Tier 1 17 17 NCS = 50 NCS@barn = 23 10 Attributed NCS = 73 (gC m-2 yr-1) Fleach Extensive pastures (n=3): 320 gCO2 equivalents m-2 yr-1 (sink) Intensive meadows (n=3): -272 gCO2 equivalents m-2 yr-1 (source) (Soussana et al., 2007, AGEE; Soussana et al., 2010, Animal)
  49. 49. Carbon balance of EU grazing systems (1987-2007) 1.0 0.9 Cumulated relative frequency 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -2 -1 NBP (gC m yr ) Source Sink Source Sink(permanent grasslands) (Soussana et al., in preparation)
  50. 50. Greenhouse gas balance of EU grazing systems (1987-2007) IPCC Tier 1 For CH4 and N2O (permanent grasslands) Sink CO2 equivalents Source
  51. 51. Outline1. Context: climate negotiations and food security2. International and European research programing3. The land based carbon and GHG balance of Europe4. Comparing arable, pasture and forest systems5. The GHG balance of farms6. Vulnerability to climate change
  52. 52. Mitigation options in New Zealand(Ag-Research, NZ)
  53. 53. Marginal Abatement Cost Curves (Moran et al., 2011, J. Agric. Economics)
  54. 54. A model of GHG and C sequestration in livestock farms (FARMSIM) Gaseous losses Fixation Atmospheric Gaseous lossesLifecycle (C, N) (C, N) deposition (N) (C, N) IPCCanalysis Tier 2 Inputs Cattle housing Energy Feed Animals Manure Animal & straw produce Feed & bedding stores stores Pastures Fertilizer Meadows Arable Crop Seed crops produce Irrigation (N) Runoff (C, N) Leaching (N) Grassland and crop models A dynamic model coupling lifecycle analysis and carbon sequestration (Salettes et al., 2004; Schils et al., 2007; Duretz et al., 2009)
  55. 55. Summary: greenhouse gas balance per unit area of grasslands and of livestock farms SINK SOURCE
  56. 56. Outline1. Context: climate negotiations and food security2. International and European research programing3. The land based carbon and GHG balance of Europe4. Comparing arable, pasture and forest systems5. Carbon balance of grasslands6. The GHG balance of farms7. Vulnerability to climate change
  57. 57. Did the 2003 European heatwave lead to a CO2 concentration?Summer temperature anomaly Vegetation anomaly in July 2003(July 2003, MODIS)
  58. 58. Net Primary Productivity change in 2003 vs. 1998-2002 Summer AnnualOn average, the 2003 heat spell, combined with the drought, caused a195 and 77 gC m-2 yr-1 decline in ecosystem photosynthesis andrespiration, respectively. (Ciais et al., Nature 2005)
  59. 59. Possible knock-on effects of extreme climatic events Heat Heat Drought Drought Reduced GPP, Reduced GPP, Xylem embolism Xylem embolism Reduced reserves Reduced reserves Frost damage Frost damage Reduced foliage Reduced foliage Pests and insects damages Pests and insects damages Tree mortality Tree mortalityIncreased C Forest decline, Wildfires Forest decline, Wildfireslosses Change in land use: forest Misadaptation? Change in land use: forest to fallow or rangeland to fallow or rangeland
  60. 60. Impacts of climate variability andextremes on the C cycle in grasslands Interannual variability Agricultural Greenhouse gas management emissions
  61. 61. What are the impacts of summer heat and drought extremes?C, controlCX, Control and extreme(‘summer 2003’ heat wave)T, average year in the 2050’sTX, extreme year in the 2050’s Automated rain shelters Passive IR Active regulated IR
  62. 62. End of heat wave Two months after heat wave Mediterranean C MedlyDactylis glomerata T C Temperate Ludac T + X - X + X - X
  63. 63. Concluding comments (1/2)1. Soil carbon needs to be accounted to achieve a consistent GHG balance in the agriculture, forestry and land use sector2. Forestry has attracted more efforts so far, but is vulnerable to climate extremes (e.g. storms, fires and droughts)3. Soil carbon sequestration requires advanced verification methods, which are still lacking in real farm conditions4. There are multiple trade-offs between agricultural production, carbon sequestration and N2O and CH4 emissions. Agricultural systems will need to be gradually optimized in each European region.5. Mitigation strategies could be based on the eco-efficiency of farms, that is their net GHG emissions per unit of food, feed or fiber product.6. Uncertainties scale up with the length of the food supply chains. There is no consensus yet on lifecycle analyses for long supply chains like livestock production.
  64. 64. Concluding comments (2/2)7. Carbon sequestration should be sustained over several decades to be effective.8. Therefore, mitigation and adaptation to climate change need to be addressed consistently9. In addition, there are trade-offs between mitigation, adaptation, food security, land use and biodiversity. We try to address these multiple constraints

×