How Does Recycling of Livestock Manure in Agroecosystems Affect

File failed to load: https://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/contrib/a11y/accessibility-menu.js ..... Infrastructure database, SCOPUS, CAB Abstracts and Googl...
1 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size
Subscriber access provided by Binghamton University | Libraries

Article

How does recycling of livestock manure in agroecosystems affect crop productivity, reactive nitrogen losses and soil carbon balance? Longlong Xia, Shu Kee Lam, Xiaoyuan Yan, and Deli Chen Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • Publication Date (Web): 02 Jun 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on June 3, 2017

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 36

Environmental Science & Technology

1

How does recycling of livestock manure in agroecosystems affect crop

2

productivity, reactive nitrogen losses and soil carbon balance?

3 4

Longlong Xiaa,b,c, Shu Kee Lamb, Xiaoyuan Yan a*, Deli Chenb*

5

a.

6

Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China.

7

b.

8

University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.

9

c.

State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil Science,

School of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, the

University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

10 11

*

12

Xiaoyuan Yan, Phone: +86 25 86881530, Fax: +86 25 86881000, Email:

13

[email protected]

14

Deli Chen, Phone: +61 3 83448148, Fax: +61 3 83445037, Email:

15

[email protected]

Corresponding author:

16 17 18 19 20 21

1

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

22

Abstract:

23

Recycling of livestock manure in agroecosystems to partially substitute synthetic

24

fertilizer nitrogen (N) input is recommended to alleviate the environmental

25

degradation associated with synthetic N fertilization, which may also affect food

26

security and soil greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, how substituting

27

livestock manure for synthetic N fertilizer affects crop productivity (crop yield; crop

28

N uptake; N use efficiency), reactive N (Nr) losses (ammonia (NH3) emission, N

29

leaching and runoff), GHG (methane, CH4; and nitrous oxide, N2O; carbon dioxide)

30

emissions and soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration in agroecosystems is not well

31

understood. We conducted a global meta-analysis of 141 studies and found that

32

substituting livestock manure for synthetic N fertilizer (with equivalent N rate)

33

significantly increased crop yield by 4.4% and significantly decreased Nr losses via

34

NH3 emission by 26.8%, N leaching by 28.9% and N runoff by 26.2%. Moreover,

35

annual SOC sequestration was significantly increased by 699.6 and 401.4 kg C ha−1

36

yr−1 in upland and paddy fields, respectively; CH4 emission from paddy field was

37

significantly increased by 41.2%, but no significant change of that was observed from

38

upland field; N2O emission was not significantly affected by manure substitution in

39

upland or paddy fields. In terms of net soil carbon balance, substituting manure for

40

fertilizer increased carbon sink in upland field, but increased carbon source in paddy

41

field. These results suggest that recycling of livestock manure in agroecosystems

42

improves crop productivity, reduces Nr pollution and increases SOC storage. To

43

attenuate the enhanced carbon source in paddy field, appropriate livestock manure 2

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 2 of 36

Page 3 of 36

Environmental Science & Technology

44

management practices should be adopted.

45

Key words: substituting manure for fertilizer; crop productivity; reactive nitrogen

46

losses; greenhouse gas emissions; carbon sequestration; agroecosystems

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 3

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

66

TOC

67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 4

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 4 of 36

Page 5 of 36

Environmental Science & Technology

81

Introduction

82

Despite its critical role in feeding global population, the use of synthetic fertilizer

83

N causes a cascade of adverse impacts on the environment (e.g., air pollution and

84

freshwater eutrophication) through the release of reactive N (Nr) from agricultural

85

soils1-4. Synthetic N fertilization may increase soil carbon sequestration5, but the

86

increase in CO2 sink could be largely offset or even overweighed by N stimulation of

87

CH4 and N2O emission from agricultural soils6-8. Better N management in crop

88

production is therefore critical for addressing the triple challenges of food security,

89

environmental degradation and global warming9-11.

90

Globally, annual production of livestock manure N has reached nearly 100 Tg

91

N12 and recycling of this large amount of manure N in agroecosystems to partially

92

substitute synthetic N fertilizer (substituting manure for fertilizer, and hereafter) may

93

help address the above-mentioned triple challenges3,

94

fertilizer is beneficial for improving soil properties and subsequently crop yield14-16.

95

The responses of yield to substituting manure for fertilizer may vary with crop species

96

and the proportion of manure N substitution17-19, but few studies have conducted a

97

comprehensive assessment on these responses.

98 99

13

. Substituting manure for

Substituting manure for fertilizer generally alters Nr losses through regulating crop N uptake and soil N transformation20,

21

, and may result in a better

100

synchronization of crop N demand with N supply17, 22, thereby increasing crop N

101

uptake and likely decreasing Nr losses23. Moreover, substituting manure for fertilizer

102

increases the input of C substrates into soil, which may stimulate mineral N 5

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

103

immobilization and therefore reduce N substrate that is subjected to loss as Nr24. The

104

effects of substituting manure for fertilizer may vary with Nr species (e.g., NH3

105

emission and N leaching)23. This highlights the importance of simultaneously

106

assessing the responses of various Nr losses (NH3 emission, N leaching and runoff) to

107

the substitution of manure for fertilizer.

108

Substituting manure for fertilizer can also affect SOC accumulation through

109

supplying exogenous C input to soil25, which may also enhance soil microbial

110

activities and stimulate soil CO2 emission26-28. Likewise, the growth of methanogenic

111

populations in flooded paddy field may also be stimulated by the extra C supply and

112

consequently release more CH429, 30. However, the response of substituting manure for

113

fertilizer on CH4 emission from upland field remains unknown. Another knowledge

114

gap is how substitution of manure for fertilizer affects N2O emission from agricultural

115

soils. Through affecting the C and N availability for the processes of nitrification and

116

denitrification, substituting manure for fertilizer can regulate N2O production and

117

emission from soils17, 31. While a number of measurements have been reported, there

118

has been no systematic assessment of the overall effects of substituting manure for

119

fertilizer on CH4, N2O and CO2 emission, and SOC sequestration in agroecosystems.

120

Here, using a global meta-analysis of 141 studies, we evaluated the overall

121

effects of substituting manure for fertilizer on crop productivity (crop yield; crop N

122

uptake; N use efficiency, NUE), Nr losses (NH3 emission, N leaching and N runoff),

123

GHG (CH4, N2O and CO2) emissions and SOC sequestration in agroecosystems.

124

Responses of these variables to manure substitution were then evaluated against crop 6

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 6 of 36

Page 7 of 36

Environmental Science & Technology

125

species, manure type and substitution rate. Effects of substituting manure for fertilizer

126

on the net soil carbon balance were also evaluated for upland and paddy fields. In the

127

end, the underlying causes of different responses of variables to manure substitution,

128

and the implications of the findings were discussed.

129

Materials and methods

130

Data collection. This meta-analysis is based on studies that evaluated the effects of

131

substituting manure for fertilizer on crop productivity, Nr losses, GHG emissions and

132

SOC sequestration in grain and vegetable cropping systems. Several databases were

133

employed to search relevant peer-reviewed studies published before August 2016,

134

including Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure database,

135

SCOPUS, CAB Abstracts and Google Scholar. Studies included in this analysis had to

136

meet the following criteria. First, species and amounts of applied manure, cropping

137

system and experimental durations had to be clearly stated. Second, manure type was

138

restricted to livestock manure and animal-excreta dominated farm yard manure. Third,

139

the control (synthetic N fertilization) and treatment (substituting manure for fertilizer)

140

had equal total N rate. Fourth, the substitution rate, defined by manure N input/total N

141

applied, had to be reported.

142

Fifth, studies were restricted to field, lysimeter and pot studies with crop growth.

143

Means and samples size must be provided for the control and treatment plots.

144

Multiple observations conducted in the same experimental site over sampling years

145

were averaged. The observation methods of various GHG emissions and Nr losses

146

should be widely-adopted. Specifically, GHG emissions should be measured by the 7

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 8 of 36

147

static chamber technique32, NH3 emission by the dynamic chamber method or

148

micrometeorological method23, and N leaching and runoff by lysimeter method or

149

suction cap24. In addition, when evaluating the response of SOC sequestration, studies

150

with experimental durations less than 3 year were excluded to avoid a short-term

151

noise33. A total of 141 peer-reviewed studies were finally selected across the world

152

(Supporting Information (SI), Figure S1).

153

Evaluated variables. Effects of substituting manure for fertilizer were evaluated by

154

the following three categories with 11 variables, including (1) crop productivity: crop

155

yield, crop N uptake and N use efficiency (NUE); (2) Nr losses: NH3 emission, N

156

leaching and N runoff; (3) GHG (CH4, N2O and CO2) emissions and SOC

157

sequestration (SOC content and SOC sequestration rate). N2O is both a species of

158

GHG and Nr, and here its responses are reported under the category of GHG. Crop N

159

uptake refers to total aboveground N uptake for grain crop, while it denotes the total

160

N uptake by yield, stem and leaves for vegetable crop. The NUE, referring to total N

161

recovery efficiency, was calculated by dividing the difference in crop N uptake in

162

plots with and without fertilization by total fertilizer N rate.

163

The emission of CO2 refers to soil respiration, which includes microbial and root

164

respiration. In the studies where SOC sequestration rate (SOCSR) was not directly

165

reported, the rate was estimated by the following equation16, 34:

166

SOCSR (kg C ha−1 yr−1) = (SOCDt– SOCD0) / T

167

where SOCDt and SOCD0 refer to SOC density (kg C ha−1) in final and initial years of

168

the experiment, respectively, which was calculated using equation (2). T refers to the 8

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

(1)

Page 9 of 36

Environmental Science & Technology

169

experimental duration of substituting manure for fertilizer (year).

170

SOCD = SOC × ρ × H × 10−1,

171

where SOC is soil organic carbon content (g C kg−1); ρ is soil bulk density (g cm−3)

172

and H is the sampling depth. In studies where ρ was missing, it was estimated using

173

following equation35:

174

ρ= –0.0048 × ln SOC + 1.377

(2)

(3)

175

Effects of substituting manure for fertilizer were further categorized, according

176

to crop species (grain crop and vegetable crop, Table S1 in SI), manure type (fresh

177

and composted manure) and substitution rate (Rs, manure N input/total N applied)

178

(Rs≤25%, 25