Bram Govaerts

701 views

Published on

A presentation at the WCCA 2011 event in Brisbane.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
701
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Bram Govaerts

  1. 1. Cero vs. Convencional ZT CT Govaerts et al., 2005
  2. 2. Precipitación total (mm) Promedio 2008 2009Mes 1991-2007Junio 106 102 118Julio 116 102 35Agosto 117 153 63
  3. 3. Zero vs. Conventional ZT CT Govaerts et al., 2005
  4. 4. Mitigacion● Gases traces = CO2 + CH4 + N2O● No se encontró diferencia en las emisiones del suelo 242 kg CO2-C ha-1 y-1 máximo● Contenido de C orgánico en el suelo (0-60 cm): Agricultura de conservación 40,000 kg C ha-1 > que convencional● Agricultura de conservación secuestró 2,000 kg C ha-1 y-1● Agricultura de conservación redujo emisiones de las operaciones con 74 kg C ha-1
  5. 5. Mitigacion● Net Potencial de Calentamiento de la Tierra Agricultura de conservación neutral 40 kg CO2-C ha-1 y-1 Convencional es un emisor 2,000 kg CO2-C ha-1 y-1
  6. 6. Literature review ● Govaerts et al., submitted ● West and Post (2002), Jarecki and Lal (2003), VandenBygaart et al. (2003), Blanco-Canqui and Lal (2008) + Literature search (Web of Science) ● Only >5y and minimum 30cm ● Very little research in Africa, Central- Latin- America, Asia
  7. 7. Literature review ● Conventional till  Zero tillage 8/62 cases C stock decreased 21/62 cases C stock not significant different 33/62 case C stock increased ● Increased rotation 22/55 cases C stock decreased 5/55 cases C stock not significant different 28/55 cases C stock increased

×