Upload
praveen-thakur
View
149
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
WELCOME
2
SARDARKRUSHINAGAR DANTIWADA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
Significance of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Climatic Security
Praveen ThakurM.Sc. (Agri.)
Department of Agril. Chemistry & Soil Science C.P. College of AgricultureSDAU, Sardarkrushinagar
3
Significance of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Climatic Security
my) Time:Major Advisor
Dr. B.T. PatelProfessor, CIL, Directorate of
Research, SDAU, Sardarkrushinagar
Minor AdvisorDr. P.P. Chaudhari
Associate Professor, Dept. of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Tharad, SDAU, Sardarkrushinagar
4
Carbon- Climate Interaction
5
Significance of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Climatic Security
“Unpredictable changes in the chemical
composition of the earth’s atmosphere and climate
variability observed over comparable time periods
which magnify the challenge of increasing
agricultural production to feed the expanding
population.”
6
Chain of Climate change
Carbon Concentration
Solar radiation
Temperature
Rainfall pattern
Drought Floods
7
Fig. 1 : Contribution of Different Gases in Global GHG Emission
IPCC Report 2014
Fig.2: Global Greenhouse Gas Emission by Economic Sector
IPCC Report 2014
8
9
Fig. 3:Cumulative GHG Emissions 1990-2011 (% of World Total)
http://bit.ly/11SMpjA)World Resource Institute
10
Fig.4: Carbon Dioxide Concentration
11
Anthropogenic
URBANIZATION-Industrialization
- Emission of GHG’s
DEFORESTATION-Soil Erosion
INTENSIFIED AGRO-ECOSYSTEM-Secondary Salinity-Chemical Fertilizer
Natural
Sunspot and solar cycle
Ocean currents
Wild fires
Volcanic eruptions
Methane emission from marshy land
Causes of Climate Change
12
On Weather
On Biodiversity
Sea level rise
On Marine Organisms
On Agriculture
On Glaciers & Icesheet
On Economy
Impact of Climate Change
13
Agriculture
Population Dynamics of
pest and diseases
Genetic erosion
Depletion of water
level
Production and
productivity
Degradation of soil
nutrients
Depletion of nutritive
value
(Anon., 2013)
Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture
14
Fig.5 : Global Emission of Greenhouse GasesEstimated temperature in 21004.5°C Business as usual
2°C Path
3.5°C current national commitment with no change after the pledge period ending 2025-2030
2000 2025 2050 2075 2100
Billo
n to
ns C
O2 e
quiv
alen
t per
yea
r
0
100
150
200
(Science 350,2015)
7.4 °C
15
Significance of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Climatic Security
Carbon sequestration implies transferring
atmospheric CO2 into long-lived pools and
storing it securely so it not immediately
reemitted.
(Lal, 2004)
16
Fig. 6 : Global Carbon Cycle
Fluxes shown are approximate for the period 2000–05, as documented by the IPCC.(USGS Report, 2008)
17
CARBON STOCK
18
Table 1 : Global Soil Carbon Pool
Depth(m)Soil C Pool (Pg)
SOC SIC Total
0.3 704 234 938
1.0 1505 722 2227
2.0 3300 1700 5000
Permafrost (3m)
- - 1400-1700
(Batjes, 1996)
Table 2 : Carbon stock in Indian soil (Order-wise)
Soil Order Soil Depth (m)
Carbon Stock (Pg)
SOC SIC TC
Entisols 0-0.3 0.62 0.89 1.510-1.5 2.56 2.86 5.42
Vertisols 0-0.3 2.59 1.07 3.660-1.5 8.77 6.14 14.90
Inceptisols 0-0.3 2.17 0.62 2.790-1.5 5.81 7.04 12.85
Aridisols 0-0.3 0.74 1.40 2.140-1.5 2.02 13.40 15.42 Conti…19 (Bhattacharyya et al., 2000)
20
Soil Order Soil Depth (m) SOC SIC TCMollisols 0-0.3 0.09 00 0.09
0-1.5 0.49 0.07 0.56Alfisols 0-0.3 3.14 0.16 3.30
0-1.5 9.72 4.48 14.20Ultisols 0-0.3 0.20 0.0 0.20
0-1.5 0.55 0.0 0.55Total 0-0.3 9.55 4.14 13.69
0-1.5 29.92 33.98 63.9
(Bhattacharyya et al., 2000)
21
Table 3 : Organic and inorganic carbon stock in Indian soils (0-0.3m soil depth)
Soil Carbon
Pool
Alluvial soils(Pg)
Black soils(Pg)
Arid soils(Pg)
Brown forest soils (Pg)
Red soils (Pg)
Total (Pg)
Organic 2.79 2.56 0.71 0.12 3.33 9.55
Inorganic 1.52 1.08 1.39 00 0.15 4.14
Total 4.31 3.64 2.11 0.12 3.52 13.69
(Bhattacharyya et al , 2005)
Bioclimatic systems
Coverage (Mha)
SOC Stock (Pg)
SIC Stock(Pg)
Total Carbon Stock (Pg)
Arid cold 15.2 0.6 0.7 1.3
Arid hot 36.8 0.4 1.0 1.4
Semi-arid 116.4 2.9 1.9 4.8
Subhumid 105 2.5 0.3 2.8
Humid to per humid
34.9 2.1 0.04 2.14
Coastal 20.4 1.3 0.07 1.37
Ranges in rainfall; arid= <550mm; semi-arid= 550-1000mm; subhumid=1000-1500mm; humid to per humid= 1200-3200mm;
Table 4 : Soil carbon stocks in different bioclimatic systems in India
(Bhattacharyya et al., 2008)22
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50Soil organic C (stock)Soil inorganic C (stock)Area(%)
Rel
ativ
e co
ncen
trat
ion
of c
arbo
n st
ock
( % r
espe
ctiv
e st
ocks
)
Plateau & Himalaya Coastal IGP Gujarat Dry Island Hills
Fig.7 : Soil C stocks and areal extent of seven major agroclimatic zone of India
(Bhattacharyya et al. 2009)
24
Carbon- Agriculture Interaction
25
Indirect Role of Carbon in Agriculture
•Improving Soil Structure
•Sustaining Microbial & Faunal Activities
•Suppressing Soil Borne Pathogens
•Nutrient Supply
Fig.08 : Physical Properties in Soils of the DOK Farming Systems
Results are presented relative to CONFYM (=100%) in four radial graphs. Absolute values for 100% are as follows.Perco. stab:43.3 ml Min -1
Aggregate.stability:55%stable aggregates >250 mmBulk density: 1.23 g cm -3
( Mäder et al. 2002)26
Switzerland
Results are presented relative to CONFYM (=100%) in four radial graphs. Absolute values for 100% are as follows. Microbial biomass, 285 mg Cmic kg-1; dehydrogenase activity, 133mg TPF kg-1h-1; protease activity, 238 mg tyrosine kg-1 h-1; alkaline phosphatase, 33 mg phenol kg-1 h-1; saccharase, 526 mg reduced sugar kg-1 h-1; mycorrhiza, 13.4% root length colonized by mycorrhizal fungi.
Fig.09: Biological Properties in Soils of DOK Farming Systems
(Mäder et al. 2002)27
FIG. 10 : Monnier’s conceptual model
28
( Abiven et al. 2009)
Fig. 11 : Schematic overview of the relationships between time-to-maximum group and magnitude for the different organic product
( Abiven et al. 2009)
The circles represent the average of the different organic products categories in magnitude and in the time-to-maximum groups.
29
Fig.12: Effect of O.M. Decomposition on Diseases Suppression
( Bonanomi et al 2010)Data are expressed as percentage of the total number of studies (n=426) 30
Suppressing Soil Borne Pathogens
Data are expressed as percentage values calculated from the total number of studies within each OM type. The number of studies is reported in brackets.
Fig.13: Effect of Organic Matter Decomposition on Disease Suppression in Relation to the Organic Matter Type
(Bonanomi et al 2010)31
32
Fig.14: Disease Suppression Dynamics During Organic Matter Decomposition
(Bonanomi et al 2010)
Fig.15 : The Coupled Cycling of H2O, C, N, P, S and
the Ecosystem Services Generated
(Lal, 2010)33
34
Agriculture‘s Potentiality Towards Soil Carbon Sequestration
Treatment Initial soil C
(Mg ha-1)
SOC after 29 years(Mg ha-1)
C loss rate (Mg C ha-1
yr-1)
C Addition rate (Mg C ha-1yr-1 )
Turn over period (yr)
SMBC (kg ha-1)
Akola (Sorghum-Wheat)
Control 10.12 9.90 0.015 0.15 67 418
N - 11.66 0.060 0.70 17 444
NP - 12.32 0.086 1.06 12 537
NPK - 12.98 0.105 1.36 10 576
NPK +FYM - 15.40 0.124 1.91 8.1 803
Table 5 : Initial value, steady state value, overall rate of loss, rate of addition, period of turnover and soil biological activity in long term fertilizer and manuring at Akola
(Singh et al. 1996)35
VertisolAkola,(MH)
Table 6 : Amount of crop residue C inputs into soils across treatments and cropping systems
Cropping SystemAmount crop residue C inputs (Mg C ha-1y-1)
Treatment
MeanControl NPK NPK+Organics
Rice-mustard-sesame 1.88 2.76 3.75 2.80
Rice-wheat-fallow 1.82 3.33 3.97 3.04
Rice-fallow-berseem 2.45 3.17 4.16 3.26
Rice-wheat-jute 2.58 5.08 6.17 4.61
Rice-fallow-Rice 2.58 3.56 4.30 3.48
Mean 2.26 3.58 4.47 3.44
(Mandal et al.2007)36
Treatments Tillage
O.C.(g/kg) Total N (%)
Manuring CT MT MEAN CT MT MEAN
RDF (100%) 5.70 5.55 5.62 0.059 0.058 0.058
RDF (50%) 4.1 4.60 4.35 0.057 0.058 0.057
RDF (50%) + 5t FYM/ha 5.45 5.8 5.62 0.056 0.057 0.056
RDF (50%) + 10t FYM/ha 5.85 5.9 5.87 0.056 0.058 0.057
RDF (50%) + 15t FYM/ha 5.95 6.12 6.03 0.057 0.062 0.059
RDF (50%) + green manuring
5.61 5.59 5.60 0.058 0.060 0.059
Mean 5.44 5.59 - 0.057 0.059 -
SE (m)± 0.036 0.063 0.089 0.0002 0.00036 0.0005
CD (p=0.05) NS 0.186 0.261 0.0006 0.0011 0.0015
Conti…
Table 07: Effect of tillage and manuring on soil organic carbon, total nitrogen and yield of cotton
37 (Sonune et al. 2013)Akola
Medium Deep Vertisol
CT :Conventional tillagaeMT: Minimum tillageRDF(100%) 50:25:00 N:P:K kg/ha
Treatments Tillage
Seed cotton (kg/ha) Cotton (kg/ha)
Manuring CT MT MEAN CT MT MEAN
RDF (100%) 1262 1295 1278 3041 3149 3095
RDF (50%) 953 1002 978 2430 2596 2513
RDF (50%) + 5t FYM/ha 1138 1219 1178 2944 3195 3069
RDF (50%) + 10t FYM/ha 1300 1396 1348 3279 3349 3314
RDF (50%) + 15t FYM/ha 1500 1594 1547 3625 3732 3678
RDF (50%) + green manuring
1155 1245 1200 2987 3010 2998
Mean 1218 1292 3051 3172
SE (m)± 35.8 62 87.7 36.0 62 88
CD (p=0.05) NS 182 257 105 182 NS
(Sonune et al. 2013)
Significance of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Climatic Security
38
Cropping systems Available nutrients (kg/ha)
OC (g/kg)
Kharif Rabi Summer N P2O5 K2OC1:Pearlmillet Mustard Fallow 194 16.16 197 3.57C2: Greengram + Sunhemp (2:1) (BBF)- Castor
Castor continue Greengram 212 21.00 207 3.77
C3: Greengram+ Cowpea (2:1) (BBF)- Castor
Castor continue Sorghum + Cowpea (3:1)
214 22.13 193 3.45
C4: Greengram+ Sunheamp(2:1) (BBF)- Castor+ Bottlegourd
Castor continue Castor + Bottlegourd continue
206 19.10 205 3.73
C5: Bt Cotton + Sunhemp (1:2)- Castor + Bitter gourd
Bt Cotton + Castor continue
Castor + Bitter gourdContinue
218 20.40 204 3.68
C6: Greengram Fennel + Cauliflower (1:1)
Fennel Continue
202 21.11 202 3.43
C7: Greengram Mustard+ Lucerne
Lucerne continue
203 19.13 209 3.48
C8: Bt Cotton + Greengram(1:2) Bt Cotton + Castor after Greengram
Castor continue 213 17.32 219 3.65
Initial 195 15.92 198 0.33S. K. Nagar (Annual report 2013-14)
Loamy sand soil
Table 8 : Soil fertility status at the end of various cropping sequence
39
Table 9 : Effect of organic nutrient management on soil organic carbon stock and carbon sequestration rate (Rice-Rice sequence)
Treatments
Soil organic carbon content (g kg-1)
Bulk Density (t m-3)
Total soil organic carbon stock (t ha-1)
Soil organic carbon sequestration rate (t ha-1year-1)Initail 22.28 t ha-1
0-15cm 15-30cm 0-15cm 15-30cm 0-15cm 15-30cm Total
T1 7.84 5.72 1.65 1.72 19.40 14.76 34.16 1.98
T2 9.32 7.82 1.6 1.64 22.23 19.12 41.34 3.17
T3 11.25 7.26 1.58 1.62 26.66 17.64 44.30 3.67
T4 11.50 7.83 1.56 1.61 26.91 18.91 45.81 3.92
T5 11.43 8.27 1.55 1.59 26.57 19.72 46.29 4.00
T6 10.52 7.73 1.57 1.6 24.77 18.55 43.32 3.50
T7 10.24 7.60 1.58 1.61 24.27 18.35 42.62 3.35
SEm(±) 0.510 0.375 0.026 0.024 0.425 0.317 1.250 0.263
LSD (0.05) 1.58 1.13 0.08 0.08 1.275 0.96 3.86 0.81
Treatment detailsKharif T1: Dhanicha@ 25 kg seed ha-1;T2 : T1 + FYM 5t ha-1 (basal); T3 : T1 + vermicompost 2t ha-1 (basal); T4 : T1 + vermicompost 2t ha-1 (split);
T5 : T1 + FYM + vermicompost 2t ha-1 (split); T6 : T1 + FYM + vermicompost 2t ha-1 (basal); T7: T1 + FYM + PanchagavyaSummer T1 : Control ; T2 : FYM 5t ha-1 (basal); T3 : Vermicompost 2t ha-1 (basal);T4 : Vermicompost 2t ha-1 (split); T5 : FYM + vermicompost 2t
ha-1 (split);T6 : FYM + vermicompost 2t ha-1 (basal);T7 : FYM + Panchagavya(Pradhan et al. , 2015)
BhubaneswarSandy Loam 40
Table 10 : Soil organic carbon (SOC) pools under different management regimes in surface (0-10 cm) and subsurface (10-30 cm) paddy growing soils in fertilizer experiment at Barak Valley, Assam
Treatments
Sub fractionation of organic carbon% 0-10 cm
Very labile (CVL)
Labile (CL) Less Labile (CLL)
Non-Labile (CNL)
TOC(%)
Control 0.28 (22%) 0.04 (3%) 0.10 (8%) 0.88 (67%) 1.30a
VM 0.33 (24%) 0.10 (7%) 0.17 (12%) 0.76 (57%) 1.36b
Inorganic 0.30 (23%) 0.10 (8%) 0.14 (11%) 0.79 (59%) 1.33a
Organic 0.36 (25%) 0.13 (9%) 0.12 (8%) 0.85 (59%) 1.46ab
Organic+ inorganic
0.37 (26%) 0.14 (10%) 0.05 (4%) 0.87 (60%) 1.43ab
Control: without any organic and inorganic fertilizer; VM: village management (partially decomposed cow dung applied @ 70-80 Mg ha-1); Inorganic (NPK) fertilizer (130-100-60) urea, single superphosphate and muriate of potash); Organic manure (phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer and azobacter bio-fertilizer applied in two steps: seedlings dip andsoil application; Organic+Inorganic: both organic and inorganic fertilizer applied together
(Nath et al.,2015)
Conti…41
Treatments
Sub fractionation of organic carbon% 10-30cm
Very labile (CVL)
Labile (CL) Less Labile (CLL)
Non-Labile (CNL)
TOC(%)
Control 0.13 (19%) 0.06 (9%) 0.16 (23%) 0.35 (50%) 0.70a
VM 0.15 (19%) 0.10 (13%) 0.15 (20%) 0.40 (49%) 0.80b
Inorganic 0.13 (16%) 0.11 (14%) 0.17 (21%) 0.40 (49%) 0.81b
Organic 0.14 (19%) 0.09 (12%) 0.10 (14%) 0.41 (55%) 0.74ab
Organic+ inorganic
0.16 (19%) 0.09 (11%) 0.15 (18%) 0.45 (53%) 0.85b
Control: without any organic and inorganic fertilizer; VM: village management (partially decomposed cow dung applied @ 70-80 Mg ha-1); Inorganic (NPK) fertilizer (130-100-60) urea, single superphosphate and muriate of potash); Organic manure (phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer and azobacter bio-fertilizer applied in two steps: seedlings dip andsoil application; Organic+Inorganic: both organic and inorganic fertilizer applied together
(Nath et al.,2015)
Conti…42
43
Treatments
Sub fractionation of organic carbon%
0-30cmActive pool (CAP) Passive Pool (CPP)
Control 26% 74%VM 31% 69%Inorganic 30% 70%Organic 33% 67%Organic+ inorganic 33% 67%Control: without any organic and inorganic fertilizer; VM: village management (partially decomposed cow dung applied @ 70-80 Mg ha-1); Inorganic (NPK) fertilizer (130-100-60) urea, single superphosphate and muriate of potash); Organic (phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer and azobacter bio-fertilizer applied in two steps: seedlings dip andsoil application; Organic+Inorganic: both organic and inorganic fertilizer applied together
(Nath et al.,2015)
Table 11: Organic carbon (%) of soil and C sequestration under different MPTs after thirty year of plantation
TreatmentsOrganic carbon (%)
MeanC sequestration
in tree(kg/tree)
C sequestration in tree(t/ha)0-30 cm 30-60 cm 60-90 cm
Neem(Azadirachta indica) 0.81 0.35 0.32 0.49
(226.67) 1343.53 1492.81
Khejdi(Prosopis cineraria) 0.62 0.46 0.45 0.51
(240.00) 1497.82 1664.24
Gando baval(Prosopis juliflora) 0.58 0.57 0.35 0.50
(233.33) 1847.11 2052.35
Israel babool(Acacia tortolis) 0.83 0.59 0.47 0.63
(320.00) 1834.05 2037.83
Control 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.15 - -
SEm.± 0.03 0.02 0.02 223.22 248.02
C.D. at 5 % 0.11 0.07 0.07 N.S. N.S.
C.V. (%) 11.49 10.70 13.12 27.38 27.38
Figures in parentheses indicate the per cent values increase over control.
(Patel ,2016)S.K. NagarSandy Loam Soil 44
Con
stra
ints Soil Carbon Storage Potential
Biophysical, e.g. climate, soil type
Management, e.g. land-use tradition
Economic, e.g. pressure and drives
Political, e.g. failing incentives
MonthsYears
Decades
Centuries
Significance of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Climatic Security
45
Significance of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Climatic Security
CO
NC
LU
SIO
N Soil C sequestration is a bridge to the future until non-carbon fuel options take effect. The data indicate that projected annual global emissions during the next century would need to be reduced by more than 75 percent in order to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at about 550 ppm. This concentration would be about twice the level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. Soil C sequestration is certainly a step in the right direction to improve soils, increase crop yield and mitigate climate change through judicious land use and recommended management practices (RMPs) but decisions about soil carbon sequestration require careful consideration of priorities and tradeoffs among multiple resources.
46
Acknowledgements Dr. B.T. Patel
Jignesh, Chena, Ashish, Alpesh Ms. Sweta, Mr. Sunil Nath, Mr. Kashyap, Mr. Basavraj
Vikram Jha , Shalini Verma, Parth Rahevar&
Microsoft
Thank you