[acs symposium series] understanding greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural management volume...

Chapter 10

Mitigation Options for Methane and NitrousOxide from Agricultural Soil: From FieldMeasurement to Evaluation of Overall

Effectiveness

Hiroko Akiyama,* Yoshitaka Uchida, and Akinori Yamamoto

National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences,3-1-3 Kannondai, Tsukuba 305-8604, Japan

*E-mail: [email protected]

This chapter describes field measurement techniques andmitigation options for methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).Of the currently available technologies, the most potent andfeasible options for mitigating CH4 from paddy rice fields aremid-season drainage and off-season rice straw application (i.e.,rice straw from a previous season is incorporated into the soillong before cultivation) and the use of nitrification inhibitorsto mitigate N2O emission from agricultural fields. Mid-seasondrainage and rice straw management were estimated to reduceglobal CH4 emission by 16% each. If both of these mitigationoptions were adopted, the global CH4 emission from ricepaddies would be reduced by 30%. According to meta-analysisof field data, nitrification inhibitors significantly reducedN2O emission from agricultural fields (mean effect: –38%)compared with that of conventional fertilizers.

Introduction

Agriculture is an important source of anthropogenic methane (CH4) andnitrous oxide (N2O). Rice cultivation is a major source of CH4, which is agreenhouse gas. Yan et al. (1) estimated global CH4 emission from rice paddyfields in 2000 as 25.6 Tg year–1, which accounts for about 4% of global CH4emission. N2O is a greenhouse gas, and is involved in the destruction of

© 2011 American Chemical Society

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

CSF

LIB

CK

M R

SCS

MG

MT

on

Nov

embe

r 24

, 201

4 | h

ttp://

pubs

.acs

.org

P

ublic

atio

n D

ate

(Web

): O

ctob

er 1

1, 2

011

| doi

: 10.

1021

/bk-

2011

-107

2.ch

010

In Understanding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Management; Guo, L., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.

stratospheric ozone. Agriculture is the largest single source of global N2O. Theagricultural sector is estimated to emit 2.8 Tg N year–1 from soil and livestock,which accounts for 16% of global N2O emission (42% of global anthropogenicN2O emission) (2).

Recent advances in measurement techniques have led to significantimprovements in the estimation of CH4 and N2O emission from agriculturalfields. These advances are also expected to allow more accurate evaluations ofexisting mitigation options and to enhance the development of new mitigationtechnologies. Mitigation options for CH4 and N2O from agricultural soil havebeen intensively studied, primarily in field experiments. For example, 85 fieldmeasurements of the effectiveness of nitrification inhibitors on N2O have beenreported (3). Such field studies are useful for evaluating the effectivenessof mitigation options within local environments and for investigating themechanisms of those mitigation options. However, CH4 and N2O fluxes andthe effectiveness of mitigation options vary widely depending on environmentalfactors such as soil type and climate. Therefore, the overall effectiveness ofmitigation options cannot be evaluated by a single field experiment. Statisticalmodels and meta-analyses can combine the results of numerous field studies, andthese statistical methods are useful for evaluating the overall effectiveness ofmitigation options.

This chapter describes techniques for measuring CH4 and N2O fluxes andoptions for mitigating CH4 and N2O, focusing particularly on recent developmentsin the evaluation of the overall effectiveness of those mitigation options.

Estimating CH4 and N2O Fluxes from Agricultural Field

Field Measurement Techniques for CH4 and N2O Fluxes

There are twomethods formeasuring CH4 andN2Ofluxes from soil: the use ofclosed chambers and micrometeorological techniques (4). In the closed chambermethod, CH4 and N2O fluxes are determined by enclosing the atmosphere abovesoil and measuring the changes in headspace gas concentrations over time. Thismethod is useful for comparisons between adjacent treatments and allows process-based studies. Rochette and Eriksen-Hamel (5) assessed chamber designs andtechniques and made suggestions for obtaining more accurate flux measurements.Greenhouse gas fluxes from soils, and particularly those of N2O, generally showlarge spatial and temporal variability. Therefore, to develop reasonable estimatesof annual emission, it is important to monitor these fluxes from many chambersfrequently over long periods. Because the manual chamber techniques are simpleand inexpensive, it has become a widely used method. However, it is also labor-intensive and time-consuming. Consequently, flux measurements reported in theliteratures have been typically obtained at intervals of 3 to 7 days over a period ofseveral months (6). Automated chamber techniques reduce labor costs and achievefrequent and long-term sampling (these are described in the following section).

166

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

CSF

LIB

CK

M R

SCS

MG

MT

on

Nov

embe

r 24

, 201

4 | h

ttp://

pubs

.acs

.org

P

ublic

atio

n D

ate

(Web

): O

ctob

er 1

1, 2

011

| doi

: 10.

1021

/bk-

2011

-107

2.ch

010


Micrometeorological (eddy covariance) techniques involve measurements ofCH4 and N2O concentrations in the atmosphere at two or more points above thesoil surface, in combination with meteorological measurements (e.g., wind speed,wind direction, and air temperature). These methods are suitable for measuringgas flux from a large area and are widely used to measure CO2 fluxes from forestsand agricultural fields. Although the eddy covariance technique has been used tomeasure CH4 fluxes from a paddy rice field (7) and N2O flux from a pasture (8),most studies of CH4 and N2O fluxes use chamber methods. One disadvantage ofmicrometeorological techniques is that they are less reliable at low wind speed andhigh atmospheric stability. In addition, because eddy covariance methods requirelarge homogenous field sites, it is difficult to use them to evaluate mitigationoptions, which requires comparison among different treatments in adjacent fieldplots. Owing to these disadvantages, micrometeorological techniques are notdiscussed any further here.

Automated Chamber Techniques

Automated chamber techniques were developed for frequent and long-termmonitoring of gas fluxes, which is difficult with manual chamber methods.Since Schütz et al. (9) reported the use of an on-line connected automatedsampling–analytical system (hereafter, an on-line monitoring system) formonitoring CH4 fluxes from a rice field, various on-line systems for monitoringCH4 and N2O fluxes from soils have been developed (Figure 1) (10–15). Thesesystems typically consist of automated chambers, a gas sampling system, andanalytical systems such as a gas chromatograph or a photoacoustic infrared tracegas analyzer. Although on-line monitoring systems allow frequent and long-termflux measurement, one disadvantage is their large size. The monitoring systemscan be difficult to transport between sites once they have been set up, and theanalytical systems usually must be maintained at constant temperature. Becausethese systems also require frequent maintenance, field sites are usually limited tothose near a research station that can provide appropriate maintenance facilities.

An alternative approach is the use of off-line monitoring systems, which arebased on a gas sampling system with automated chambers. In such systems, thegas samples are transferred to a laboratory for analysis. Such systems greatlyreduce the labor cost compared to that of manual chamber methods. In addition,the systems are much less expensive and smaller than typical on-line monitoringsystems. Off-line monitoring systems are easier to transport between sites forsubsequent experiments, and they can be set up in remote areas. Such systemsusing specially made aluminum gas tubes (16) or copper sample loops (17) as thesample gas containers were reported. Akiyama et al. (18) developed a simple androbust automated sampling system that uses common glass vials as the sample gascontainers (Figure 2). Their systemwas further modified to control three chamberswith one sampling unit and is commercially available in Japan. In 2010, more than20 of these systems were in operation in Japan.

167

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

CSF

LIB

CK

M R

SCS

MG

MT

on

Nov

embe

r 24

, 201

4 | h

ttp://

pubs

.acs

.org

P

ublic

atio

n D

ate

(Web

): O

ctob

er 1

1, 2

011

| doi

: 10.

1021

/bk-

2011

-107

2.ch

010


Figure 1. Example of an on-line connected automated sampling–analyticalsystem. The system uses six auto-chambers. For N2O and nitric oxide fluxmeasurements, the lid of each chamber is closed to isolate the air inside fromthe atmosphere, and the air inside is drawn into the analysis system through a10-m-long Teflon tube. GC-ECD: gas chromatograph equipped with electroncapture detector. (Reproduced with permission from reference (10). Copyright

2000 Elsevier B.V.)

Mitigation Options for CH4 Emission from Paddy Rice Fields

CH4 is produced by the activity of CH4-producing archaea (methanogens) asone of the terminal products in the anaerobic food web in rice paddy soils (19,20). Methanogens are strict anaerobes that require highly reducing conditions.Part of the produced CH4 is consumed by CH4-oxidizing bacteria (methanotrophs).The emission pathway of CH4 accumulated in flooded paddy soils is as follows:diffusion into the flood water, loss through ebullition, and transport through theaerenchyma system of rice plants. In temperate rice fields, more than 90% of CH4is emitted via the plants (21). In tropical rice fields, however, the contribution ofebullition may be larger than in temperate regions (22). The possible strategies for

168

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

CSF

LIB

CK

M R

SCS

MG

MT

on

Nov

embe

r 24

, 201

4 | h

ttp://

pubs

.acs

.org

P

ublic

atio

n D

ate

(Web

): O

ctob

er 1

1, 2

011

| doi

: 10.

1021

/bk-

2011

-107

2.ch

010


mitigating CH4 emission from rice cultivation include controlling the production,oxidation, or transport processes.

Yagi et al. (19) and Minamikawa et al. (23) assessed strategies for reducingCH4 emission from paddy rice and reported various mitigation options, such aswater management (mid-season drainage, short flooding period, and increasedpercolation), organic matter management (composting and off-season rice strawapplication), soil amendments (oxidants, soil dressing), no or minimum tillage,rotation, and the use of particular rice varieties. Among these, mid-seasondrainage and off-season rice straw application are the two most intensively studiedtechnologies and therefore the most potent and feasible mitigation options.

Water Management

Because CH4 production occurs strictly under reducing conditions, watermanagement greatly affects CH4 emission from paddy rice fields. Mid-seasondrainage is a traditional management practice in which irrigated rice paddiesare drained for 7-10 days during the growing season. Mid-season drainage ispracticed in Japan, China, and other monsoon Asian countries to enhance grainyield, whereas continuous flooding of rice paddies is common in Vietnam (1).According to intensive field measurements across five countries (24), mid-seasondrainage reduces CH4 emission by 7% to 80% compared to continuous flooding.

Another traditional water management practice of intermittent irrigation isalso practiced in Japan, China, India and other Asian countries. In intermittentirrigation, drainage and irrigation repeated with few days cycle during the growingseason. Studies have shown this practice to be effective for reducing CH4 emission(25–30), although fewer studies have examined intermittent irrigation as comparedto mid-season drainage. Lu et al. (31) reported that mid-season drainage reducedCH4 emission by 44% compared to continuous flooding, and intermittent irrigationreduced CH4 emission by 30% as compared with mid-season drainage. Yagi et al.(32) reported that a high percolation rate of irrigation water greatly reduced CH4emission, although there are not many reports related to this mitigation option.

Yan et al. (33) developed a statistical model using more than 1000 seasonalmeasurements from more than 100 sites. On the basis of their results, the 2006IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (34) adopted a 40%CH4 reduction rate for a single mid-season drainage and 48% for drainage onmultiple occasions, compared to continuous flooding (Figure 3). It should benoted that good irrigation systems are required to practice mid-season drainageor intermittent irrigation. In many parts of tropical Asia, rice fields are rain-fed,so they are naturally flooded during the monsoonal rainy season, making fullycontrolled drainage often impossible. For paddy fields in which irrigation watercan be controlled, mid-season drainage would be one of most effective and cost-effective mitigation options.

169

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

CSF

LIB

CK

M R

SCS

MG

MT

on

Nov

embe

r 24

, 201

4 | h

ttp://

pubs

.acs

.org

P

ublic

atio

n D

ate

(Web

): O

ctob

er 1

1, 2

011

| doi

: 10.

1021

/bk-

2011

-107

2.ch

010


Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the automated gas sampling system (Japanpatent pending 2008-011540). (Reproduced with permission from reference (18).

Copyright 2009 John Wiley and Sons, Inc.)

Organic Matter Management

Rice straw, green manure and animal manure are widely applied in ricecultivation. This added organic matter acts as an electron donor and a substratefor CH4 production. According to a statistical model developed by Yan et al.(33), the impact of organic amendments on CH4 emission depends on the typeand amount of material applied (Figure 4). When rice straw is applied duringthe off-season—that is, rice straw from a previous season is incorporated into thesoil long before cultivation so that it decomposes under aerobic conditions—CH4emission is greatly reduced compared to application just before the cultivation.However, this practice is not universally applicable. For example, in doublerice crop areas such as southern China, late rice is planted immediately after theearly rice harvest, which necessitates that the rice straw be applied just before thegrowing season.

170

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

CSF

LIB

CK

M R

SCS

MG

MT

on

Nov

embe

r 24

, 201

4 | h

ttp://

pubs

.acs

.org

P

ublic

atio

n D

ate

(Web

): O

ctob

er 1

1, 2

011

| doi

: 10.

1021

/bk-

2011

-107

2.ch

010


Figure 3. Relative CH4 fluxes for different water regimes in the rice growingseason, shown as relative fluxes (with flux from continuously flooded fields = 1),according to the statistical model of Yan et al. (33). Mean and 95% confidenceintervals are shown. No confidence intervals are shown for deep water, becauselimited data were available. (Adapted with permission from reference (33).

Copyright 2005 John Wiley and Sons, Inc.)

Figure 4. Simulated effects of different organic amendments on CH4 emissionfrom rice fields, assuming flux without any organic amendment to be 1. Note thatstraw is in dry weight but others are in fresh weight. FYM: farmyard manure;GM: green manure; Straw_on_season: rice straw applied just before planting;Straw_off_season: rice straw applied and incorporated long before planting.(Reproduced with permission from reference (33). Copyright 2005 John Wiley

and Sons, Inc.)

171

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

CSF

LIB

CK

M R

SCS

MG

MT

on

Nov

embe

r 24

, 201

4 | h

ttp://

pubs

.acs

.org

P

ublic

atio

n D

ate

(Web

): O

ctob

er 1

1, 2

011

| doi

: 10.

1021

/bk-

2011

-107

2.ch

010


The application of composted rice straw is more effective at reducing CH4emission than the use of non-composted straw (Figure 4). This practice, however,involves additional labor to transport material from and back to the field. If nostraw is applied to the field, CH4 emission is greatly reduced. In this case, however,rice straw is likely to be burned, which causes severe air pollution. Therefore,burning straw is prohibited in many places.

Other Options

Aside from reports on mid-season drainage and off-season straw application,there is little information available regarding other options for mitigating CH4.The use of soil amendments, such as iron-containing materials, has been reportedto be effective at reducing CH4 emission by soil incubation or pot experiments(35–37) and field experiments (38–40). Although there are some reports thatno-till is effective at reducing CH4 emission (41, 42), Ishibashi et al. (43) foundthat the mitigation effect of no-till declined over time and became ineffectiveafter 4 to 7 years. Results of CH4 emission reduction by planting certain ricevarieties are conflicting, and Wassmann et al. (44) concluded that the variety-specific differences are small compared to the effects of other factors, and that theyvary between seasons and are too elusive for accurate classification of varietieswith respect to their CH4 mitigation potential. Shiratori et al. (45) reported thattile drainage was effective at reducing CH4 emission by oxidizing soil during thefallow season.

The Mitigation Potential of Global CH4 Emission from Paddy Fields

Yan et al. (1) investigated the global CH4 mitigation potential of mid-seasondrainage and off-season rice straw application. They estimated that if all of thecontinuously flooded rice fields were drained at least once during the growingseason, CH4 emission would be reduced by 4.1 Tg year-1, which is equal to a16% reduction of global CH4 emission from paddy fields. They estimated thatoff-season rice straw application (>30 days before cultivation) would result in aglobal reduction in CH4 emission of 4.1 Tg year-1. If both of these mitigationoptions were adopted, the global CH4 emission from rice paddies could be reducedby 7.6 Tg year-1, which is equal to a 30% reduction of global CH4 emission frompaddy rice fields.

Draining continuously flooded rice fields may lead to an increase in N2Oemission. However, Akiyama et al. (46) analyzed N2O emission from paddy fieldsand concluded that the increase of global warming potential (GWP) resulting fromthe N2O increase due to mid-season drainage is much smaller than the reduction inGWP that would result from the CH4 reduction associated with draining the fields.

172

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

CSF

LIB

CK

M R

SCS

MG

MT

on

Nov

embe

r 24

, 201

4 | h

ttp://

pubs

.acs

.org

P

ublic

atio

n D

ate

(Web

): O

ctob

er 1

1, 2

011

| doi

: 10.

1021

/bk-

2011

-107

2.ch

010


Mitigation Options for N2O Emission from Agricultural Fields

The application of nitrogen to soils as chemical or organic fertilizer stimulatesN2O production mainly via the biochemical processes of nitrification (underaerobic conditions) and denitrification (anaerobic conditions) (47). Nitrifierdenitrification and the non-biochemical process of chemodenitrification are alsoinvolved in the production of N2O in soil, although the contributions of theseprocesses are unclear (47).

Optimizing Fertilizer Application Rate

The basic strategy for mitigating N2O emission is optimizing nitrogenuse efficiency (48), although this strategy has not been assessed quantitatively.Recently, Mosier et al. (49) introduced the concept of Greenhouse Gas Intensity,which is GWP divided by crop yield. By linking grain yield with greenhousegas emission, it becomes possible to maximize yield in an environmentallysound manner by using appropriate levels of fertilizer-nitrogen input (49).Van Groenigen et al. (50) further developed this concept and conducted ameta-analysis of 147 field data from 19 studies. They found that optimizingfertilizer-nitrogen use efficiency under median rates of nitrogen input, ratherthan minimizing nitrogen application rates, resulted in minimum yield-scaledN2O emission (i.e., N2O emission in relation to aboveground nitrogen uptake)for non-leguminous arable crops. Yield-scaled N2O emission was smallest (8.4g N2O-N kg−1 N uptake) at application rates of approximately 180–190 kg Nha−1 and increased sharply above that (e.g., 26.8 g N2O-N kg−1 N uptake at301 kg N ha−1). If the aboveground nitrogen surplus was equal to or less thanzero, yield-scaled N2O emission remained stable and relatively small. At anitrogen surplus of 90 kg N ha−1, yield-scaled emission increased threefold. It isnotable that minimum input of nitrogen fertilizer, which is generally consideredto minimize N2O emission, did not result in minimum N2O emission when cropyield was taken into account. The strategies that reduce N2O emission whilemaximizing nitrogen use efficiency will also reduce the environmental impactscaused by nitrogen fertilizer, such as nitrogen leaching and subsequent waterpollution and ammonia volatilization.

Use of Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizers

Enhanced-efficiency fertilizers, such as those containing nitrification andurease inhibitors and polymer-coated fertilizers, have been developed to increasethe efficiency of fertilizer use by crops. Nitrification inhibitors are compoundsthat delay the oxidation of NH4+ by depressing the activities of nitrifiers in thesoil, whereas urease inhibitors are compounds that delay the hydrolysis of urea.Polymer-coated fertilizers have a slower rate of nutrient release than conventionalfertilizers. These types of enhanced-efficiency fertilizers have been studiedintensively, and the findings indicate that they can be effective in increasingnitrogen use efficiency and have other benefits such as reducing labor and fuelcosts (51) and decreasing nitrogen leaching (52). These technologies have not

173

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

CSF

LIB

CK

M R

SCS

MG

MT

on

Nov

embe

r 24

, 201

4 | h

ttp://

pubs

.acs

.org

P

ublic

atio

n D

ate

(Web

): O

ctob

er 1

1, 2

011

| doi

: 10.

1021

/bk-

2011

-107

2.ch

010


been used widely thus far, however, because a yield increase is rarely observeddespite the additional costs (53, 54).

Although many field studies have tested the effectiveness of enhanced-efficiency fertilizers on N2O emission, the effectiveness of each option variesacross sites depending on environmental factors and field management practices.Akiyama et al. (3) evaluated the overall effectiveness of enhanced-efficiencyfertilizers on N2O emission by a meta-analysis of field experiment data (113datasets from 35 studies). The results showed that nitrification inhibitorssignificantly reduced N2O emission (mean effect: –38%, Figure 5) comparedwith conventional fertilizers. Polymer-coated fertilizers also significantly reducedN2O emission (–35%), whereas urease inhibitors were not effective at reducingN2O. Nitrification inhibitors and polymer-coated fertilizers also significantlyreduced nitric oxide emission (–46% and –40%, respectively). The effectivenessof nitrification inhibitors was relatively consistent across the various types ofinhibitors and land uses. However, the effect of polymer-coated fertilizers showedcontrasting results across soil and land-use types: they were significantly effectivewhen used on imperfectly drained Gleysol grassland (–77%), but were ineffectivewhen used on well-drained Andosol upland fields. Because the available datafor polymer-coated fertilizers were dominated by certain regions and soil types,additional data are needed to evaluate their effectiveness more reliably.

Among nitrification inhibitors, dicyandiamide (DCD) has been themost widely tested. According to a meta-analysis of field experiments (3),DCD significantly reduces N2O emission (mean effect: –30%) compared toconventional fertilizers. In contrast, a much larger effect of DCD (–61% to –76%)was reported based on soil column experiments (55–58). The reason for thisdiscrepancy between field and laboratory experiments is that soil incubation orsoil column experiments are often conducted under optimal conditions for DCDto inhibit nitrification (4).

Other Options

Bouwman et al. (59) estimated that replacing synthetic nitrogen fertilizerwith animal manure nitrogen would result in a 33% reduction of global nitrogenfertilizer use and an 11% reduction of N2O emission. In contrast, replacingsynthetic nitrogen fertilizer with biological nitrogen fixation would lead to a N2Oincrease at the global scale (59).

Many studies have suggested that no-till and reduced tillage candecrease agriculture’s contribution to greenhouse gas emission through carbonsequestration (60). However, conclusions on the effect of these practices ongreenhouse gas budgets are complicated by the inconsistent effects of no-tilland reduced tillage on N2O emission (60, 61). Rochette (61) summarizedavailable data from field studies and concluded that no-till generally increasedN2O emission in poorly aerated soils but had a neutral effect in soils with goodand medium aeration. Six et al. (60) summarized field experiment data fromhumid and dry temperate climates and concluded that mitigation of GWP by theadoption of no-till is variable and complex.

174

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

CSF

LIB

CK

M R

SCS

MG

MT

on

Nov

embe

r 24

, 201

4 | h

ttp://

pubs

.acs

.org

P

ublic

atio

n D

ate

(Web

): O

ctob

er 1

1, 2

011

| doi

: 10.

1021

/bk-

2011

-107

2.ch

010


Figure 5. The effect of nitrification inhibitors (NIs) on N2O emission, shownas relative emission (N2O emission from conventional fertilizer = 1), by a

meta-analysis of field experiments. Mean effect and 95% confidence intervalsare shown. Numerals indicate number of observations. (Note that the sum ofobservations for each type of NI does not match the number of observations forall NIs because one dataset that tested 2-amino-4-chloro-6-methyl pyrimidineis included in the all NIs category.) All NIs: integrated effect of all types of NI;DCD: dicyandiamide; DMPP: 3,4-dimethyl pyrazole phosphate; Ca-carbide:encapsulated and coated calcium carbide; Neem: various products such as neemoil–coated urea, neem-coated urea, nimin-coated urea, and urea with neem cakefrom the Indian neem tree (Azadirachta indica). (Reproduced with permission

from reference (3). Copyright 2010 John Wiley and Sons, Inc.)

Conclusions

Recent advances in measurement techniques, such as the use of automatedchambers, have made significant improvements in the estimation of CH4 and N2Oemission from agricultural fields. These advances are also expected to allow moreaccurate evaluation of existing mitigation options and the development of newmitigation technologies.

Of the currently available mitigation technologies, the most potent andfeasible mitigation options are mid-season drainage and off-season rice strawapplication for CH4 from paddy rice fields and nitrification inhibitors for N2Ofrom agricultural fields. Mid-season drainage and rice straw management isestimated to reduce global CH4 emission by 16% each. If both of these mitigationoptions were adopted, the global CH4 emission from rice paddies could bereduced by 30%. According to meta-analysis of field data, nitrification inhibitorssignificantly reduce N2O emission from agricultural fields (mean effect: –38%)compared with that of conventional fertilizers. Optimizing fertilizer-nitrogen useefficiency under median rates of nitrogen input would minimize yield-scaled N2O

175

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

CSF

LIB

CK

M R

SCS

MG

MT

on

Nov

embe

r 24

, 201

4 | h

ttp://

pubs

.acs

.org

P

ublic

atio

n D

ate

(Web

): O

ctob

er 1

1, 2

011

| doi

: 10.

1021

/bk-

2011

-107

2.ch

010


emission. The strategies that reduce N2O emission while maximizing nitrogenuse efficiency will also reduce the environmental impacts caused by nitrogenfertilizer, such as nitrogen leaching and subsequent water pollution and ammoniavolatilization.

References

1. Yan, X.; Akiyama, H.; Yagi, K.; Akimoto, H. Global Biogeochem. Cycles2009, 23. doi.10.1029/2008GB003299.

2. Denman, K. L.; Brasseur, G.; Chidthaisong, A.; Ciais, P.; Cox, P. M.;Dickinson, R. E.; Hauglustaine, D.; Heinze, C.; Holland, E.; Jacob, D.;Lohmann, U.; Ramachandran, S.; da Silva Dias, P. L.; Wofsy S. C.; Zhang,X. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution ofWorking Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change; Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z.,Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., Miller, H. L., Eds.; CambridgeUniversity Press: Cambridge, U.K., 2007; pp 500–587.

3. Akiyama, H.; Yan, X.; Yagi, K. Global Change Biol. 2010, 16, 1837–1846.4. de Klein, C. A. M.; van der Weerden T. J.; Eckard R. J. In Nitrous Oxide and

Climate Change; Smith, K., Ed.; Earthscan: London, 2010; pp 107–142.5. Rochette, P.; Eriksen-Hamel, N. S. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2008, 72 (2),

331–342.6. Bouwman, A. F.; Boumans, L. J. M.; Batjes N. H. Global Biogeochem.

Cycles 2002, 16(4), GB1058, doi:10.1029/2001GB001811.7. Miyata, A.; Iwata, T.; Nagai, H.; Yamada, T.; Yoshikoshi, H.; Mano, M.;

Ono, K.; Han, G. H.; Harazono, Y.; Ohtaki, E.; Baten, M. A.; Inohara, S.;Takimoto, T.; Saito, M. Phyton-Ann. Rei Bot. 2005, 45 (4), 89–97.

8. Phillips, F. A.; Leuning, R.; Baigenta, R.; Kelly, K. B.; Denmead, O. T.Agric.For. Meteorol. 2007, 143 (1–2), 92–105.

9. Schütz, H.; Holzapfelpschorn, A.; Conrad, R.; Rennenberg, H.; Seiler, W. J.Geophys. Res. Atmos. 1989, 94 (D13), 16405–16416.

10. Akiyama, H.; Tsuruta, H.; Watanabe, T. Chemosphere: Global Change Sci.2000, 2 (3–4), 313–320.

11. Ambus, P.; Robertson, G. P. Soil Sci. Soci. Am. J. 1998, 62 (2), 394–400.12. Loftfield, N. S.; Brumme, R.; Beese, F. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1992, 56 (4),

1147–1150.13. Nishimura, S.; Sudo, S.; Akiyama, H.; Yonemura, S.; Yagi, K.; Tsuruta, H.

Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2005, 51 (4), 557–564.14. Thornton, F. C.; Valente, R. J. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1996, 60 (4), 1127–1133.15. Yamulki, S.; Jarvis, S. C. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 1999, 104 (D5),

5463–5469.16. Scott, A.; Crichton, I.; Ball, B. C. J. Environ. Qual. 1999, 28 (5), 1637–1643.17. Smith, K. A.; Dobbie, K. E. Global Change Biol. 2001, 7 (8), 933–945.18. Akiyama, H.; Hayakawa, A.; Sudo, S.; Yonemura, S.; Tanonaka, T.; Yagi, K.

Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2009, 55 (3), 435–440.

176

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

CSF

LIB

CK

M R

SCS

MG

MT

on

Nov

embe

r 24

, 201

4 | h

ttp://

pubs

.acs

.org

P

ublic

atio

n D

ate

(Web

): O

ctob

er 1

1, 2

011

| doi

: 10.

1021

/bk-

2011

-107

2.ch

010


19. Yagi, K.; Tsuruta, H.; Minami, K. Nutri. Cycling Agroecosyst. 1997, 49(1–3), 213–220.

20. Conen, F.; Smith, K. A.; Yagi, K. InMethane and Climate Change; Reay, D.,Smith, P., van Amstel, A., Eds.; Earthscan: London, 2010; pp 115–135.

21. Schutz, H.; Seiler, W.; Conrad, R. Biogeochemistry 1989, 7 (1), 33–53.22. Vandergon, H.; Neue, H. U. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 1995, 9 (1), 11–22.23. Minamikawa, K.; Sakai, N.; Yagi, K. Microbes Environ. 2006, 21 (3),

135–147.24. Wassmann, R.; Lantin, R. S.; Neue, H. U.; Buendia, L. V.; Corton, T. M.;

Lu, Y. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst. 2000, 58 (1–3), 23–36.25. Adhya, T. K.; Bharati, K.; Mohanty, S. R.; Ramakrishnan, B.; Rao, V. R.;

Sethunathan, N.; Wassmann, R. Nutr. Cyclying Agroecosyst. 2000, 58 (1–3),95–105.

26. Jain, M. C.; Kumar, S.; Wassmann, R.; Mitra, S.; Singh, S. D.; Singh, J. P.;Singh, R.; Yadav, A. K.; Gupta, S. Nutr. Cyclying Agroecosyst. 2000, 58(1–3), 75–83.

27. Yang, S. S.; Chang, H. L. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2001, 33 (2), 157–165.28. Pathak, H.; Prasad, S.; Bhatia, A.; Singh, S.; Kumar, S.; Singh, J.; Jain, M.

C. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 97 (1–3), 309–316.29. Yue, J.; Shi, Y.; Liang, W.; Wu, J.; Wang, C. R.; Huang, G. H. Nutr. Cycling

Agroecosyst. 2005, 73 (2–3), 293–301.30. Jiao, Z. H.; Hou, A. X.; Shi, Y.; Huang, G. H.; Wang, Y. H.; Chen, X.

Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2006, 37 (13–14), 1889–1903.31. Lu, W. F.; Chen, W.; Duan, B. W.; Guo, W. M.; Lu, Y.; Lantin, R. S.;

Wassmann, R.; Neue, H. U. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst. 2000, 58 (1–3),65–73.

32. Yagi, K.; Minami, K.; Ogawa, Y. Plant Soil 1998, 198 (2), 193–200.33. Yan, X. Y.; Yagi, K.; Akiyama, H.; Akimoto, H. Global Change Biol. 2005,

11 (7), 1131–1141.34. IPCC, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,

Volume 4 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use; Institute for GlobalEnvironmental Strategies (IGES): Hayama, Japan, 2006.

35. Furukawa, Y.; Inubushi, K. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2004, 50 (7), 1029–1036.36. Qu, D.; Ratering, S.; Schnell, S. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2004, 72

(6), 1172–1181.37. Ali, M. A.; Lee, C. H.; Kim, S. Y.; Kim, P. J. Waste Manage. 2009, 29 (10),

2759–2764.38. Jackel, U.; Russo, S.; Schnell, S. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2005, 37 (11),

2150–2154.39. Mukherjee, R.; Barua, A.; Sarkar, U.; De, B. K.; Mandal, A. K. Int. J.

Greenhouse Gas Control 2009, 3 (5), 664–672.40. Ali, M. A.; Lee, C. H.; Lee, Y. B.; Kim, P. J. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 2009,

132 (1–2), 16–22.41. Chareonsilp, N.; Buddhaboon, C.; Promnart, P.; Wassmann, R.; Lantin, R. S.

Nutri. Cycl. Agroecosys. 2000, 58 (1–3), 121–130.42. Ahmad, S.; Li, C. F.; Dai, G. Z.; Zhan, M.; Wang, J. P.; Pan, S. G.; Cao, C.

G. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 106 (1), 54–61.

177

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

CSF

LIB

CK

M R

SCS

MG

MT

on

Nov

embe

r 24

, 201

4 | h

ttp://

pubs

.acs

.org

P

ublic

atio

n D

ate

(Web

): O

ctob

er 1

1, 2

011

| doi

: 10.

1021

/bk-

2011

-107

2.ch

010


43. Ishibashi, E.; Akai, N.; Ohya, M.; Ishii, T.; Tsuruta H. Japanese Soil Sic.Plant Nutri. 2001, 72, 542–549 (In Japanese with English abstract).

44. Wassmann, R.; Aulakh, M. S.; Lantin, R. S.; Rennenberg, H.; Aduna, J. B.Nutri. Cycling Agroecosyst. 2002, 64 (1–2), 111–124.

45. Shiratori, Y.; Watanabe, H; Furukawa, Y.; Tsuruta, H; Inubushi, K. Soil Sci.Plant Nutr. 2007, 53 (4), 387–400.

46. Akiyama, H.; Yagi K.; Yan X. Y. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 2005, 19(1),GB1005, doi:10.1029/2004GB002378.

47. Baggs E. M.; Philippot, L. In Nitrous Oxide and Climate Change; Smith, K.A., Ed.; Earthscan: London, U.K.; pp 4–35.

48. Saggar, S.; Tate, K. R.; Giltrap, D. L.; Singh, J. Plant Soil 2008, 309 (1–2),25–42.

49. Mosier, A. R.; Halvorson, A. D.; Reule, C. A.; Liu, X. J. J. J. Environ. Qual.2006, 35 (4), 1584–1598.

50. van Groenigen, J. W.; Velthof, G. L.; Oenema, O.; Van Groenigen, K. J.; vanKessel, C. European J. Soil Sci. 2010, 61 (6), 903–913.

51. Grant, C. IFA International Workshop on Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizers,Frankfurt, Germany, 2005, URL http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/Home-Page/LIBRARY/Conference-proceedings/Agriculture-Conferences/2005-IFA-Agriculture-Workshop.

52. Bolan, N. S.; Saggar, S.; Luo, J. F.; Bhandral, R.; Singh, J. Adv. Agron. 2004,84, 37–120.

53. Frye, W. IFA International Workshop on Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizers,Frankfurt, Germany, 2005, URL http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/Home-Page/LIBRARY/Conference-proceedings/Agriculture-Conferences/2005-IFA-Agriculture-Workshop.

54. Guertal, E. A. HortTechnology 2009, 19 (1), 16–19.55. Di, H.; Cameron, K.; Sherlock, R.; Shen, J. P.; He, J. Z.; Winefield, C. J. Soils

Sediments 2010, 10 (5), 943–954.56. Di, H. J.; Cameron, K. C. Soil Use Management 2003, 19 (4), 284–290.57. Di, H. J.; Cameron, K. C. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2006, 42 (6), 472–480.58. Di, H. J.; Cameron, K. C.; Sherlock, R. R. Soil Use Manage. 2007, 23 (1),

1–9.59. Bouwman, A. F.; Stehfest, E.; van Kessel, C. In Nitrous oxide and Climate

Change; Smith, K. A., Ed.; Earthscan: London, 2010; pp 85–106.60. Six, J.; Ogle, S. M.; Breidt, F. J.; Conant, R. T.; Mosier, A. R.; Paustian, K.

Global Change Biol. 2004, 10 (2), 155–160.61. Rochette, P. Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 101 (1–2), 97–100.

178

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

CSF

LIB

CK

M R

SCS

MG

MT

on

Nov

embe

r 24

, 201

4 | h

ttp://

pubs

.acs

.org

P

ublic

atio

n D

ate

(Web

): O

ctob

er 1

1, 2

011

| doi

: 10.

1021

/bk-

2011

-107

2.ch

010


[acs symposium series] understanding greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural management volume...

Documents