1
|
Tedeschi LO, Abdalla AL, Álvarez C, Anuga SW, Arango J, Beauchemin KA, Becquet P, Berndt A, Burns R, De Camillis C, Chará J, Echazarreta JM, Hassouna M, Kenny D, Mathot M, Mauricio RM, McClelland SC, Niu M, Onyango AA, Parajuli R, Pereira LGR, Del Prado A, Tieri MP, Uwizeye A, Kebreab E. Quantification of methane emitted by ruminants: A review of methods. J Anim Sci 2022; 100:6601311. [PMID: 35657151 PMCID: PMC9261501 DOI: 10.1093/jas/skac197] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2022] [Accepted: 05/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
The contribution of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ruminant production systems varies between countries and between regions within individual countries. The appropriate quantification of GHG emissions, specifically methane (CH4), has raised questions about the correct reporting of GHG inventories and, perhaps more importantly, how best to mitigate CH4 emissions. This review documents existing methods and methodologies to measure and estimate CH4 emissions from ruminant animals and the manure produced therein over various scales and conditions. Measurements of CH4 have frequently been conducted in research settings using classical methodologies developed for bioenergetic purposes, such as gas exchange techniques (respiration chambers, headboxes). While very precise, these techniques are limited to research settings as they are expensive, labor-intensive, and applicable only to a few animals. Head-stalls, such as the GreenFeed system, have been used to measure expired CH4 for individual animals housed alone or in groups in confinement or grazing. This technique requires frequent animal visitation over the diurnal measurement period and an adequate number of collection days. The tracer gas technique can be used to measure CH4 from individual animals housed outdoors, as there is a need to ensure low background concentrations. Micrometeorological techniques (e.g., open-path lasers) can measure CH4 emissions over larger areas and many animals, but limitations exist, including the need to measure over more extended periods. Measurement of CH4 emissions from manure depends on the type of storage, animal housing, CH4 concentration inside and outside the boundaries of the area of interest, and ventilation rate, which is likely the variable that contributes the greatest to measurement uncertainty. For large-scale areas, aircraft, drones, and satellites have been used in association with the tracer flux method, inverse modeling, imagery, and LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), but research is lagging in validating these methods. Bottom-up approaches to estimating CH4 emissions rely on empirical or mechanistic modeling to quantify the contribution of individual sources (enteric and manure). In contrast, top-down approaches estimate the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere using spatial and temporal models to account for transportation from an emitter to an observation point. While these two estimation approaches rarely agree, they help identify knowledge gaps and research requirements in practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luis Orlindo Tedeschi
- Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2471 - USA
| | - Adibe Luiz Abdalla
- Center for Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, University of Sao Paulo, Piracicaba CEP 13416.000 - Brazil
| | - Clementina Álvarez
- Department of Research, TINE SA, Christian Magnus Falsens vei 12, 1433 Ås, Norway
| | - Samuel Weniga Anuga
- European University Institute (EUI), Via dei Roccettini 9, San Domenico di Fiesole (FI), Italy
| | - Jacobo Arango
- International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Km 17 Recta Cali-Palmira, A.A, 6713, Cali, Colombia
| | - Karen A Beauchemin
- Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research and Development Centre, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
| | | | - Alexandre Berndt
- Embrapa Southeast Livestock, Rod. Washington Luiz, km 234, CP 339, CEP 13.560-970. São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Robert Burns
- Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science Department, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996 - USA
| | - Camillo De Camillis
- Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
| | - Julián Chará
- Centre for Research on Sustainable Agriculture, CIPAV, Cali 760042, Colombia
| | | | - Mélynda Hassouna
- INRAE, Institut Agro Rennes Angers, UMR SAS, F-35042, Rennes, France
| | - David Kenny
- Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, C15PW93, Ireland
| | - Michael Mathot
- Agricultural Systems Unit, Walloon Agricultural Research Centre, rue du Serpont 100, B-6800 Libramont, Belgium
| | - Rogerio M Mauricio
- Department of Bioengineering, Federal University of São João del-Rei, São João del-Rei, MG 36307-352, Brazil
| | - Shelby C McClelland
- Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.,Soil & Crop Sciences, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 USA
| | - Mutian Niu
- Institute of Agricultural Sciences, ETH Zurich, Universitaetstrasse 2, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Alice Anyango Onyango
- International Livestock Research Institute, P.O Box 30709 - 00100, Naiobi, Kenya.,Maseno University, Private Bag - 40105, Maseno, Kenya
| | - Ranjan Parajuli
- EcoEngineers, 909 Locust St., Suite 202, Des Moines, IA, USA
| | | | - Agustin Del Prado
- Basque Centre For Climate Change (BC3), Leioa, Spain.,IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain
| | - Maria Paz Tieri
- Dairy Value Chain Research Institute (IDICAL) (INTA-CONICET), Rafaela, Argentina
| | - Aimable Uwizeye
- Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
| | - Ermias Kebreab
- Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, Davis CA 95616 - USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Xie Y, Zhang M, Xiao W, Zhao J, Huang W, Zhang Z, Hu Y, Qin Z, Jia L, Pu Y, Chu H, Wang J, Shi J, Liu S, Lee X. Nitrous oxide flux observed with tall-tower eddy covariance over a heterogeneous rice cultivation landscape. THE SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 2022; 810:152210. [PMID: 34890681 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152210] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2021] [Revised: 12/01/2021] [Accepted: 12/02/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
Although croplands are known to be strong sources of anthropogenic N2O, large uncertainties still exist regarding their emission factors, that is, the proportion of N in fertilizer application that escapes to the atmosphere as N2O. In this study, we report the results of an experiment on the N2O flux in a landscape dominated by rice cultivation in the Yangtze River Delta, China. The observation was made with a closed-path eddy covariance system on a 70-m tall tower from October 2018 to December 2020 (27 months). Temperature and precipitation explained 78% of the seasonal and interannual variability in the observed N2O flux. The growing season (May to October) mean flux (1.14 nmol m-2 s-1) was much higher than the median flux found in the literature for rice paddies. The mean N2O flux during the observational period was 0.90 ± 0.71 nmol m-2 s-1, and the annual cumulative N2O emission was 7.6 and 9.1 kg N2O-N ha-1 during 2019 and 2020, respectively. The corresponding landscape emission factor was 3.8% and 4.6%, respectively, which were much higher than the IPCC default direct (0.3%) and indirect emission factors (0.75%) for rice paddies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yanhong Xie
- Yale-NUIST Center on Atmospheric Environment, International Joint Laboratory on Climate and Environment Change (ILCEC), Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Mi Zhang
- Yale-NUIST Center on Atmospheric Environment, International Joint Laboratory on Climate and Environment Change (ILCEC), Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China; Key Laboratory of Meteorological Disaster, Ministry of Education and Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Wei Xiao
- Yale-NUIST Center on Atmospheric Environment, International Joint Laboratory on Climate and Environment Change (ILCEC), Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China; Key Laboratory of Meteorological Disaster, Ministry of Education and Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Jiayu Zhao
- Yale-NUIST Center on Atmospheric Environment, International Joint Laboratory on Climate and Environment Change (ILCEC), Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Wenjing Huang
- Yale-NUIST Center on Atmospheric Environment, International Joint Laboratory on Climate and Environment Change (ILCEC), Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Zhen Zhang
- Yale-NUIST Center on Atmospheric Environment, International Joint Laboratory on Climate and Environment Change (ILCEC), Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China; Nanjing Jiangning District Meteorological Bureau, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Yongbo Hu
- Yale-NUIST Center on Atmospheric Environment, International Joint Laboratory on Climate and Environment Change (ILCEC), Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Zhihao Qin
- Yale-NUIST Center on Atmospheric Environment, International Joint Laboratory on Climate and Environment Change (ILCEC), Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Lei Jia
- Yale-NUIST Center on Atmospheric Environment, International Joint Laboratory on Climate and Environment Change (ILCEC), Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Yini Pu
- Yale-NUIST Center on Atmospheric Environment, International Joint Laboratory on Climate and Environment Change (ILCEC), Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Haoran Chu
- Yale-NUIST Center on Atmospheric Environment, International Joint Laboratory on Climate and Environment Change (ILCEC), Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Jiao Wang
- Yale-NUIST Center on Atmospheric Environment, International Joint Laboratory on Climate and Environment Change (ILCEC), Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China; Taiyuan Meteorological Bureau, Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, China
| | - Jie Shi
- Yale-NUIST Center on Atmospheric Environment, International Joint Laboratory on Climate and Environment Change (ILCEC), Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Shoudong Liu
- Yale-NUIST Center on Atmospheric Environment, International Joint Laboratory on Climate and Environment Change (ILCEC), Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Xuhui Lee
- School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ashiq W, Ghimire U, Vasava H, Dunfield K, Wagner-Riddle C, Daggupati P, Biswas A. Identifying hotspots and representative monitoring locations of field scale N 2O emissions from agricultural soils: A time stability analysis. THE SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 2021; 788:147955. [PMID: 34134361 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147955] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2020] [Revised: 05/09/2021] [Accepted: 05/17/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Greenhouse gas sampling from agricultural fields is laborious and time-consuming. Soil and topographical heterogeneity cause spatiotemporal variations, making nitrous oxide (N2O) estimation and management a challenge. Identification of representative monitoring locations, hotspots, and coldspots could facilitate the mitigation of agricultural N2O emissions. The objective of this study was to identify and characterize representative monitoring locations, hotspots, and coldspots of N2O emissions in agricultural fields (Baggs farm; BF and Research North farm; RN) in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada, under humid continental climate. Soil in both fields was classified as Orthic Melanic Brunisol, with some areas categorized as Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Brown Luvisol and Orthic Humic Gleysol. In total, 28 sampling points were selected following conditional Latin hypercube design using topographical parameters (digital elevation, slope, topographical wetness index, and Pennock landform classification). Gas samples were collected over a two-year crop rotation with corn (2019) and soybean (2020). Additional sampling was conducted at BF at spring thaw (2020). Time stability analysis using mean relative difference (MRD) and standard deviation of mean relative difference (SDRD) was performed to test the hypothesis that "simultaneous analysis of spatiotemporal variations in N2O emissions could help to identify and characterize representative monitoring locations, hotspots, coldspots and areas with few hot and cold moments. Most of the hotspots were located at shoulder positions, coldspots, and cold moments at backslope, and representative monitoring points were located at leveled positions or localized depressions. Time stability analysis coupled with multivariate groping analysis supported our hypothesis and helped successfully identify hotspots, coldspots, and representative locations based on landform classification with few exceptions. However, inclusion of additional topographical (curvature, contributing area, aspect) and morphological parameters (texture, thickness of soil horizon, depth to bedrock, and water table) are suggested for consideration in future research to manage variable-rate fertilizer application and mitigate N2O hotspots at landscape level.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Waqar Ashiq
- School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G2W1, Canada.
| | - Uttam Ghimire
- School of Engineering, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G2W1, Canada.
| | - Hiteshkumar Vasava
- School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G2W1, Canada.
| | - Kari Dunfield
- School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G2W1, Canada.
| | | | - Prasad Daggupati
- School of Engineering, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G2W1, Canada.
| | - Asim Biswas
- School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G2W1, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Karimi T, Stöckle CO, Higgins SS, Nelson RL. Impact of climate change on greenhouse gas emissions and water balance in a dryland-cropping region with variable precipitation. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2021; 287:112301. [PMID: 33706089 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112301] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2020] [Revised: 02/24/2021] [Accepted: 02/27/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Wheat covers a significant fraction of the US Pacific Northwest (PNW) dryland agriculture. Past studies have suggested that management practices can differentially affect productivity and emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) across the different agro-ecological Zones (AEZs) in PNW. In this study we used CropSyst, a biophysically-based cropping systems model that simulates crop processes and water and nitrogen cycles, with the purpose of evaluating relevant scenarios and contributing analyses to inform adaptation and mitigation strategies aimed at reducing and managing the risks of climate change. We compared the baseline historical period of 1980-2010 with three future periods: 2015-2045 (2030s), 2035-2065 (2050s), and 2055-2085 (2070s). The uncertainty of the future climate was captured using 12 general circulation models (GCMs) forced with two representative carbon dioxide concentration pathways (RCP 4.5 and 8.5). The study region was divided into three AEZs: crop-fallow (CF), continuous cropping to fallow transition (CCF), and continuous cropping (CC). The results indicated that areas with higher precipitation, N fertilization, and mineralization produced more N2O emissions during both baseline and future periods. The average annual N2O emission during the baseline period was between 1.8 and 4.1 kg ha-1 depending on AEZ. The overall N2O emission showed decreasing future trends from 2030s to 2070s which resulted from a higher proportion of N used by crops. From 2015 to 2085 under RCP 4.5, the average N2O emission was between 1.8 and 4.4 kg ha-1 year-1. They are slightly higher under RCP 8.5 since it is a warmer scenario. The soil organic carbon (SOC) content decreased during the baseline period while SOC did not reach equilibrium with the cropping systems considered in the study. SOC decreased during the future periods as well, with rate of change ranging from -146 to -352 kg ha-1year-1 depending on AEZ and RCP. Warming increased SOC oxidation in future scenarios, but after an initial increase of SOC losses during the 2030s period, the rate of SOC losses decreased in the 2050s, and more so in the 2070s as SOC and carbon input reached equilibrium with losses. Higher carbon input resulted from higher biomass production under elevated CO2 scenarios. The total GHG emissions were 1.95, 3.16 and 4.84 Mg CO2-equivalent ha-1year-1 under RCP 4.5, and 1.99, 3.43 and 5.49 Mg CO2-equivalent ha-1year-1 under RCP 8.5 during 2070s in CF, CCF and CC respectively, with N2O accounting for about 81% of total GHG emissions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tina Karimi
- Department of Biological System Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.
| | - Claudio O Stöckle
- Department of Biological System Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.
| | - Stewart Smock Higgins
- Department of Biological System Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.
| | - Roger L Nelson
- Department of Biological System Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Harvey MJ, Sperlich P, Clough TJ, Kelliher FM, McGeough KL, Martin RJ, Moss R. Global Research Alliance N 2 O chamber methodology guidelines: Recommendations for air sample collection, storage, and analysis. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 2020; 49:1110-1125. [PMID: 33016464 DOI: 10.1002/jeq2.20129] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2020] [Revised: 07/13/2020] [Accepted: 07/14/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Certain aspects in the collection, handling, storage, and subsequent analysis of discrete air samples from non-steady-state flux chambers are critical to generating accurate and unbiased estimates of nitrous oxide (N2 O) fluxes. The focus of this paper is on air sample collection and storage in small vials (<12 ml) primarily for gas chromatography (GC) analysis. Sample integrity is assured through following simple procedures including storage under pressure and analysis within a few months of collection. Concurrent storage of standards in an identical manner to samples is recommended and allows the storage period to be reliably extended. In the laboratory, an autosampler is typically used in batch analysis of ∼200 sequentially analyzed samples by GC with an electron capture detector (ECD). Some comparisons are given between GC and alternatives including optical N2 O detectors that are increasingly being used for high-precision N2 O measurement. The importance of calibration and traceability of gas standards is discussed, where high-quality standards ensure the most accurate assessment of N2 O concentration and comparability between laboratories. The calibration allows a consistent and best estimate of flux to be derived.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M J Harvey
- National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, PO Box 14-901, Kilbirnie, Wellington, 6241, New Zealand
| | - P Sperlich
- National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, PO Box 14-901, Kilbirnie, Wellington, 6241, New Zealand
| | - T J Clough
- Dep. of Soil and Physical Sciences, Lincoln Univ., PO Box 84, Lincoln, 7647, New Zealand
| | - F M Kelliher
- Dep. of Soil and Physical Sciences, Lincoln Univ., PO Box 84, Lincoln, 7647, New Zealand
| | - K L McGeough
- Agri-Environment Branch, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Belfast, BT9 5PX, Northern Ireland
| | - R J Martin
- National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, PO Box 14-901, Kilbirnie, Wellington, 6241, New Zealand
| | - R Moss
- National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, PO Box 14-901, Kilbirnie, Wellington, 6241, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|