O emissions from an oil palm plantation on deep peat as affected by N fertilization

Soil CO CH & N O emissions from an oil palm Soil CO

, CH

& N

O emissions from an oil palm plantation on deep peat as affected by N fertilization

Kristell Hergoualc’h Kristell Hergoualc h

Handayani E, Indrasuara, Samosir Y, van Noordwijk M, Bonneau X, Verchot L

Climate change & Greenhouse gases

Catastrophic

ƒ

Catastrophic consequences

+ 1°C

ƒ

F-gaz CH₄

14%

N₂O 8%

F-gaz

ƒ

CO₂ 1 CH 25

THINKINGbeyond the canopy

CO₂ 77%

%

IPCC (2007)

CH₄ 25 N₂O 298

Greenhouse gases & agriculture

IPCC (2007)

Global share GHG Agriculture

(ppb) ption

ƒ

ƒ

ƒ

ƒ

Atm N fert (millio

Baumert et al. (2005)

Oil palm

ƒ World’s most rapidly di

expanding crop

(Indonesia, Malaysia)

! Expansion to the detriment of natural forests

L C l

⇒ Large C losses

⇒ Biodiversity losses

⇒ Biofuel C debt

THINKINGbeyond the canopy

⇒ Biofuel C debt

Oil palm

ƒ Both on mineral (89%)

& peat soils (11%)

& peat soils (11%)

(Koh et al., 11)

!! Voluntary RSPO & Government mandatory rules forbid forest conversion & use of deep peat

ƒ Large doses of N fertilizer application:

Mineral soils: 50 – 230 kg N ha g

y y

Peat soils : 50 – 160 kg N ha

y

Research questions & Hypothesis

ƒ How do N fertilization affect GHG emissions in an oil palm

⇒

⇒

plantation on deep peat ?

⇒

ƒ How do the emission factor related to N

O emissions arising from N fertilization in an oil palm plantation on arising from N fertilization in an oil palm plantation on peat compare with IPCC estimates?

⇒ Emission factor > IPCC estimates (recently opened peat with low N availability)( y p p y)

ƒ Can optimization of N fertilization Ì GHG emissions per unit product?

THINKINGbeyond the canopy

unit product?

Location and soil characteristics

ƒ ^Climate

2466

26 5°C 2466 mm y

, 26.5°C

Driest months: June – Sept.

ƒ Peat properties Fibric

Depth (8 5 m) Depth (8.5 m) pH (3.6)

C

(42%)

N (1 2%)

N

(1.2%)

Experimental plot

ƒ

04, acquired by PT.

Bakrie in 07 in a state Bakrie in 07 in a state of fallow

ƒ

t S 10 measurements Sep. 10

ƒ

ƒ

ƒ

Factorial design: 3 N x 3 P x 3 K, 2 Ca (32 plots, 8 rows x 4 palms)

→

→

Factorial design: 3 N x 3 P x 3 K, 2 Ca (32 plots, 8 rows x 4 palms)

THINKINGbeyond the canopy

g ^{( g g )}

→

“In situ” measurements

ƒ

ƒ

ƒ

Methods GHG

ƒ Soil CO efflux: “in situ” IRGA

ƒ 4 replicate chambers per N dose

ƒ ^{Soil CO}

efflux: in situ IRGA

ƒ ^{Soil N}

^{O, CH ,}

THINKINGbeyond the canopy

4 samples/chamber (t0’, t10’, t20’, t30’)

Transportation to the laboratory

Analysis by gas chromatography

Extrapolation at the plot scale &

Emission factor Emission factor

FZ Zone Share plot N2O assigned

NFZ 92% N0

NFZ

FZ 8% N1 / N2

Example Example

N₂O _{N1 Plot} = 8% N₂O _N1 + 92% N₂O _N0

ƒ Emission factor Ef

Slope regression between N dose & GHG emissions

N

O emissions in the fertilized zone

500 600 700

a-1 d-1 ) N0 N1 N2

100 200 300 400

O (g N-N2O h

-100 0 100

-1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 N2O

ƒ ^N

^O

^{> N}

^O

^{> N}

^O

(P < 0.0001)

Days after fertilization

N dose Cumulated N₂O emissions (kg N‐N₂O ha^‐1 28 days) N0 0.3 ± 0.3

ƒ Cumulated emissions

THINKINGbeyond the canopy

N1 2.4 ± 1.1 N2 8.8 ± 1.7

N

O emissions at the plot scale & Ef

ƒ Cumulated emissions plot scale

N dose Cumulated N₂O emissions (kg N‐N₂O ha^‐1 28 days) N0 0.3 ± 0.3

N1 0.5 ± 0.4 N2 1.0 ± 0.6

ƒ Emission factor

0.8 1.0 1.2

2O plot 28 days)

⇒ Ef = 2.5% ± 0.1%

y = 0.025x + 0.03 R² = 0.94 0.2

0.4 0.6

umulative N 2 N-N2O ha-1 2

R 0.94 0.0

0

Cu (kg

CH

emissions fertilized zone & plot scale

90

30 50 70 90

H4ha-1 d-1 ) N0 N1 N2

-10 10 30

CH4(g C-CH

N i ifi b N d (P 0 3)

-30

-1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Days after fertilization

ƒ No significant ≠ between N doses treatments (P = 0.3)

ƒ Cumulated emissions

N dose Cumulated CH₄ emissions FZ (kg C‐CH₄ ha^‐1 28 days)

Cumulated CH₄ emissions Plot Scale (kg C‐CH₄ ha^‐1 28 days)

N0 0.2 ± 0.2 0.2 ± 0.2

THINKINGbeyond the canopy

N1 0.6 ± 0.5 0.2 ± 0.2

N2 0.4 ± 0.4 0.2 ± 0.2

CO

emissions fertilized zone & plot scale

250 350 450

2ha-1 d-1 ) N0

N1 N2

50 150 250

O2(kg C-CO2

-50 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

CO

Days after fertilization

ƒ ^CO

^{> CO}

^{, CO}

(P = 0.0002)

ƒ Cumulated emissions

N dose Cumulated CO₂ emissions FZ (Mg C‐CO₂ ha^‐1 28 days)

Cumulated CO₂ emissions Plot scale (Mg C‐CO₂ ha^‐1 28 days)

N0 1.9 ± 0.5 1.9 ± 0.5

N1 2.1 ± 0.2 1.9 ± 0.5

Oil palms response to fertilizer application

400

60 100 140

lar girth (cm)

N0 N1 N2

200 300 400

Height (cm)

N0 N1 N2

20

0 6 12 18 24

Coll

Months After Planting 240

280

(cm)

N0 N1

100

0 6 12 18 24

Palm

Months After Planting 35

mber N0

N1

120 160 200 240

Frond length

N2

5 15 25

Green leaf num N1

N2

6 12 18 24

Months After Planting

0.4 0.6 0.8

or index

N0 N1 N2

6 12 18 24

G

Months After Planting

6 8 10

Hanging female bunches palm^-124 MAP

0.0 0.2

12 18 24

Vigo

Months After Planting

0 2 4 6

N0 N1 N2

THINKINGbeyond the canopy

⇒ No ≠ between N1 & N2 treatments

Discussion

ƒ No correlation with soil & air temperatures, soil

moisture water table depth: Short period observation moisture, water table depth: Short period observation

ƒ Comparison with literature

→ No study on the effect on N fertilization on GHG emissions from oil palm plantation

→ Melling et al (06 05): No intensive sampling after

→ Melling et al. (06, 05): No intensive sampling after fertilization, largest N

O fluxes during wet season

N O CH CO

N₂O

(g N‐N₂O ha^‐1 d^‐1)

CH₄

(g C‐CH₄ ha^‐1 d^‐1)

CO₂

(kg C‐CO₂ ha^‐1 d^‐1) This study (N0) 12.2 ± 4.7 6.0 ± 2.7 71.0 ± 10.6

Melling et al 14 1 2 53

Melling et al. 14 1.2 53

Discussion

ƒ Very strong effect of N fertilization on N

O emissions:

Ef = 2.5%

→

ƒ IPPC guidelines for GHG inventories (2006)*

→ Ef = 1% [0.3% – 3%]

→ Ef calculated as yearly N

O / N fertilization rate

ƒ Effect N fertilization on palm growth

ƒ Effect N fertilization on palm growth

→ + effect N1 dose but no ≠ N1 & N2 doses also observed on coconut palms

THINKINGbeyond the canopy

*Vol. 4 Agriculture, Forestry & Other Land Use, Chap. 11 (N₂O emissions from managed soils, and CO₂ emissions from lime and urea application)

p

Conclusions

ƒ Complementary studies on GHG for improving Ef

- Experimental design improved with measurements in bothExperimental design improved with measurements in both fertilized and non fertilized zones (results under analysis)

- Yearly measurements including & fertilization period in a 7- year old plantation

year old plantation

ƒ GHG emission vs . Crop response to fertilizer

→

→

⇒ Reduction of emissions per unit

product feasible

Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you

if i

if i

www.cifor.cgiar.org www.cifor.cgiar.org

THINKINGbeyond the canopy CIFOR advances human well-being, environmental conservation, and equity by conducting

research to inform policies and practices that affect forests in developing countries.