Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:01:52.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Subtropical Agriculture Fields Decrease Over Time

Subject: Earth and Environmental Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2021

Thioro Fall
Affiliation:
Horticulture Sciences Department, UF/IFAS Fifield Hall, Gainesville, FL32603
Katie Heiden
Affiliation:
Soil and Water Sciences Department, UF/IFAS Tropical REC, Homestead, FL33031
Ashley R. Smyth*
Affiliation:
Soil and Water Sciences Department, UF/IFAS Tropical REC, Homestead, FL33031
Zachary Brym
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, UF/IFAS Tropical REC, Homestead, FL33031
*
*Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Expansion of cultivated lands and field management impacts greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture soils. Soils naturally cycle GHGs and can be sources or sinks depending on physical and chemical properties affected by cultivation and management status. We looked at how cultivation history influences GHG emissions from subtropical soils. We measured CO2, N2O, and CH4 fluxes, and soil properties from newly converted and continuously cultivated lands during the summer rainy season in calcareous soils from south Florida. Newly converted soils had more soil organic matter (OM), more moisture, higher porosity, and lower bulk density, leading to more GHG emissions compared to historically cultivated soils. Although more nutrients make newly converted lands more desirable for cultivation, conversion of new areas for agriculture was shown to release more GHGs than cultivated lands. Our data suggest that GHG emissions from agricultural soils may decrease over time with continued cultivation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Supplementary result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

1. Introduction

Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture are an important environmental impact to consider. Plant and livestock production currently account for 13% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (EPA, 2020). Fertilizer use, tillage, and irrigation contribute to carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) emissions (Tilman et al., Reference Tilman, Fargione, Wolff, D’Antonio, Dobson, Howarth, Schindler, Schlesinger, Simberloff and Swackhamer2001), yet are necessary to support continued cultivation of soils. Humans convert new land for agriculture because of issues with soil fertility and climate change (Galford et al., Reference Galford, Melillo, Kicklighter, Cronin, Cerri, Mustard and Cerri2010). Such changes in land cover and land-use can make up 24 to 49% of the GHG budget associated with agricultural land management (Galford et al., Reference Galford, Melillo, Kicklighter, Cronin, Cerri, Mustard and Cerri2010). While extensification, the cultivation of new land, is one way to maintain or increase production, intensification, or increasing inputs per area, can support continued cultivation of land (Pellegrini & Fernandez, Pellegrini & Fernández, Reference Pellegrini and Fernández2018). Farm management practices, such as the use of cover crops and conservation tillage can improve soil fertility allowing for continued cultivation and possibly reduce GHG emissions (Kallenbach et al., Reference Kallenbach, Rolston and Horwath2010; Snyder et al., Reference Snyder, Bruulsema, Jensen and Fixen2009; Tully & Ryals, Reference Tully and Ryals2017). Considering agriculture is a significant contributor to GHGs, there is a need to understand how land cultivation and farm management practices impact GHG emissions from agricultural soils.

2. Objective

The objective of this study was to compare soil characteristics and GHG emissions between newly converted and historically cultivated subtropical agricultural soils. GHG measurements from soils located at the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Tropical Research and Education Center in Homestead, Florida, USA are relevant for future large-scale research in agroecosystem management in south Florida and other regions with similar calcareous soil type and agricultural management. More broadly, information on GHG emissions associated with cultivation status and history of agricultural soils can help quantify future GHG emissions associated farm management.

3. Methods

Krome gravelly loam soils (Nobel et al., Reference Nobel, Drew and Slabaugh1996), were sampled once in May, July and August 2018 for GHG emissions and soil moisture in four 20m x 20m plots. Two plots were historically cultivated for vegetable production (> 20 years). The other two plots were covered in turf and scattered trees until the top 0.30m of oolithic limestone rock was crushed and plowed in March 2018. Plots used in this study were neither fertilized nor irrigated but divided into 36 sub-plots and planted with multiple cover crops. Vented static flux chambers (Holland et al., Reference Holland, Robertson, Greenberg, Groffman, Boone and Gosz1999) were randomly installed at 4 sub-plots in each of the 4 larger plots at a depth of 2-3 cm. Headspace samples (20 mL) were taken 0, 15, 30, and 45 minutes after chambers were capped and analyzed for CO2, N2O, and CH4, using a gas chromatograph with ECD and FID detectors. Fluxes were determined from the four time points using linear regressions fitted to the changes in concentration over time when the regression line had an R2 > 0.65. Our minimal detectable flux for CO2, CH4, and N2O was 1.98, 1.70, and 2.04 g ha‒1 day‒1, respectively. N2O and CH4 were converted to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2 eq.) using conversion factors 298 and 25, respectively. Soil samples (n=36) were collected from each sub-plot of the four plots at 10 cm depth and analyzed for organic matter (OM), extractable ammonium (NH4+) and nitrate (NO3) in March 2018. Soil porosity and bulk density were collected from all sub-plots in one cultivated and one converted plot. Mixed effects models were used to compare GHG fluxes and soil properties between cultivation history.

4. Results

A majority of the CH4 (37/48) and N2O (40/48) fluxes were below the detection limit; detectable fluxes (CH4 (10/11) and N2O (8/8)) were from newly converted soils. The average flux for CH4 and N2O was 0.0013 and 0.0036 kg ha‒1 day‒1, respectively, while the average CO2 flux was 12.66 kg ha‒1 day‒1. In CO2 eq, CH4 and N2O accounted for 1.5% of the overall CO2 emission. CO2 eq were 73% higher in newly converted soils compared to cultivated soils (Figure 1). Soil OM and soil porosity were significantly higher in newly converted soils compared to cultivated lands (Table 1). Cultivation decreased soil moisture compared to converted soils (Table 1). Bulk density was lower in newly converted soils than cultivated soils. Soil NH4+ and NO3 content were approximately 2.5 times and 8 times higher in the converted soils, respectively.

Figure 1. Mean (±SE) CO2 Equivalent fluxes (sum of CO2 and non-CO2 fluxes) from converted and cultivated soils (F1,2 = 13.82 p = 0.065). Fluxes were measured three times over 4 months during the summer rainy season.

Table 1. Summary table of results for soil physical and chemical properties (± SE). Different letters indicate mean values are significantly different (p < 0.05).

5. Discussion

Land conversion to agriculture in subtropical calcareous soils had higher GHG emission shortly after conversion than soils historically used for subtropical agriculture. Given the soil type and surface bedrock, we were unable to have an undisturbed control plot. Higher nitrogen content and soil moisture, as found in the newly converted soils, are both driving factors for GHG production in soils (Snyder et al., Reference Snyder, Bruulsema, Jensen and Fixen2009). Lower porosity and higher bulk density in the cultivated soils might reflect the frequent tillage, compaction, and loss of organic matter, compared to the newly converted soils, which were only tilled once prior to the experiment. The recently converted soils had higher OM, NO3, and NH4+ content, which is more desirable for agriculture in the short term.

6. Conclusions

Conversion of land for cultivation breaks up the structure of undisturbed soils and disrupts natural biogeochemical cycles. Soil structure and nutrient availability in converted lands may be desirable, at least in the short term despite the increase in GHG emissions. Farm management practices that facilitate nutrient storage (i.e., cover crops, conservation tillage) could allow for continued cultivation of lands and help reduce GHG emissions from agricultural soils (Galford et al., Reference Galford, Melillo, Kicklighter, Cronin, Cerri, Mustard and Cerri2010; Tully & Ryals, Reference Tully and Ryals2017). Our results suggest that GHG emissions may decrease overtime as subtropical land is continuously cultivated and soil OM and porosity decrease. Additional studies that assess the indirect as well as direct sources of GHG emissions from subtropical agriculture are needed to accurately identify farm management practices that can decrease the GHG costs of agriculture (Gelfand & Robertson, Reference Gelfand, Robertson, Hamilton, Doll and Robertson2015).

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Willm Martens-Habbena for help with GHG sample analysis. Asher Williams, Ariel Freidenreich, Dr. Jayachandran Krishnaswamy, Nicole Picon and Daniel Calzadilla provided field assistance and equipment.

Author Contributions

TF, ZB and ARS conceived and designed the study. TF conducted data collection. TF and KH performed the statistical analysis. All authors contributed to writing the article.

Funding Information

This research was funded through the USDA, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project #FLA-TRC-005661 and #FLA-TRC-005764, and an Early Career Seed Grant from the UF/IFAS Office of Research to ZB.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts to declare.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support these findings are openly available upon request to the corresponding author.

References

EPA. (2020). Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2018. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galford, G. L., Melillo, J. M., Kicklighter, D. W., Cronin, T. W., Cerri, C. E. P., Mustard, J. F., & Cerri, C. C. (2010). Greenhouse gas emissions from alternative futures of deforestation and agricultural management in the southern Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 1964919654. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1000780107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelfand, I., & Robertson, G. P. (2015). Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in agricultural ecosystems. In Hamilton, S. K., Doll, J. E., & Robertson, G. P. (Eds.), The ecology of agricultural landscapes: Long-term research on the path to sustainability (pp. 310339). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holland, E. A., Robertson, G. P., Greenberg, J., Groffman, P., Boone, R., & Gosz, J. (1999). Measurement of Soil CO2, N2O, and CH4 exchange. In Standard soil methods for long-term ecological research (pp. 185201). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallenbach, C. M., Rolston, D. E., & Horwath, W. R. (2010). Cover cropping affects soil N2O and CO2 emissions differently depending on type of irrigation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 137, 251260. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.02.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nobel, C. V., Drew, R. W., & Slabaugh, J. D. (1996). Soil survey of Dade County Area, Florida. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/florida/FL686/0/Dade.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pellegrini, P., & Fernández, R. (2018). Crop intensification, land use, and on-farm energy-use efficiency during the worldwide spread of the green revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 23352340. https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717072115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snyder, C. S., Bruulsema, T. W., Jensen, T. L., & Fixen, P. E. (2009). Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 133, 247266. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D’Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W. H., Simberloff, D., & Swackhamer, D. (2001). Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science, 292, 281284. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1057544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tully, K., & Ryals, R. (2017). Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems: Balancing food and environmental objectives. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 41, 761798. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.1336149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Mean (±SE) CO2 Equivalent fluxes (sum of CO2 and non-CO2 fluxes) from converted and cultivated soils (F1,2 = 13.82 p = 0.065). Fluxes were measured three times over 4 months during the summer rainy season.

Figure 1

Table 1. Summary table of results for soil physical and chemical properties (± SE). Different letters indicate mean values are significantly different (p < 0.05).

Reviewing editor:  Bartosz Adamczyk Natural Resources Institute Finland, Viikki, Helsinki, Finland, 00790
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and met required revisions.

Review 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Newly Cultivated Lands for Subtropical Agriculture

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: Interesting paper that found greater soil GHG emissions on newly vs. historically cultivated land in FL. This is important work due to threats to loss of habitat and biodiversity due to land conversion, and the need for accurate accounting of human GHG emissions. My comments below are in allyship of this work!

I recommend mentioning the context of ag intensification v. extensification (e.g. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/10/2335).

The statistics could be considered pseudoreplication (see https://doi.org/10.2307/1942661). I suggest including additional testing of the data to demonstrate statistical independence and show the correct calculation of the F-ratio.

Soil structure is surprising, I would expect the cultivated plots to have higher bulk density and lower porosity because of the erosion of soil aggregates, meaning soil particles fill pore spaces, and compaction. The newly converted soils having more soil moisture is expected with 2x the SOM. In line 89 moisture didn’t really double, it’s that the cultivated lands were halved by human impacts. In line 53 I suggest making humans the ones doing the conversion of land, rather than the passive voice insinuation of humans.

Line 48: demand for food is driven by increasing levels of consumption as well as population; also hunger is not just a product of not enough food, but the systems by which people access food. (FYI, in general, tying environmental damage to human population growth, insinuates mainly in nations with majority people of color, is problematic.)

Does “scarification” mean plowed? How deep? Were the new fields planted into anything, was N fertilizer used?

The paper does not include any caveats. Before we can conclude that new cultivation has less GHG emissions than historically cultivated land, we need the net GHG impact (e.g., see https://lter.kbs.msu.edu/citations/3465/download/Gelfand-2015-Ecology-Agric-Landscapes.pdf), I recommend adding a statement about this as a next step.

Thank you for the opportunity to review your work.

Presentation

Overall score 4.7 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
5 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
3 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4.2 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
3 out of 5

Review 2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Newly Cultivated Lands for Subtropical Agriculture

Conflict of interest statement

reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: Fall and co-authors compared soil properties and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission between soils recently converted to agricultural use and soils under continuous agricultural use for >20 years. This study addresses a topic questions of global importance to the soil and agricultural scientist, was conducted according to the state of the art, and is well presented.

Limitations: The authors did not include control plots of unconverted land. Yet, the conclusions imply that that land conversion increases GHG emissions. This cannot be inferred given that we don’t know how much GHG would be emitted had the land not been converted. This is issue can be addressed by carefully rewording the conclusion section – the authors could e.g. conclude that GHG emissions from agriculturally used fields decrease over time.

I also think that the methods need to be stated more clearly:

-The authors should state how they judged goodness-of-fit for the linear regression used to calculate GHG fluxes from each chamber closure

-Most measured CH4 and N2O fluxes were below the limit of detection (LOD), but the manuscript does not state what the LOD of their method is. This should be added.

-A clarification on the number of replicates per plot & sampling time (plus pooling of subsamples if applicable) is needed. Also, the number of measurement time points for GHG fluxes should be stated (how many times per year, covering which seasons?).

-How were GHG concentrations measured (gas chromatography? Which detectors?)

Presentation

Overall score 5 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
5 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 3 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
3 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
3 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
3 out of 5