1

MECHANISMS CONTROLLING

GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Presented by:Kumari Aditi

Dept. of Agronomy

Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural UniversityDepartment of SSAC, College Of Agriculture

Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30

2

CONTENTS1. What is Green House Effect and Green House Gases?

2. Present scenario of Green House Gases in India and world.

3. Opportunities for mitigation.

4. Technologies of mitigation.

5. Case studies.

6. Conclusion.

7. Future line of work.

3

WHAT IS GREEN HOUSE EFFECT?

“The green house effect is the natural process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be in the absence of its atmosphere”.

Greenhouse gases keep the Earth warm.

Erath’s temperature will be -18 0C in absence of this effect.

The actual problem is accelerated Green House Effect which leads to GLOBAL WARMING.

4

5IPCC, 2013

6

REASONS FOR EMISSION OF GREEN HOUSE GASES

CO2 Burning of fossil fuels.Released largely from

microbial decay.Burning of plant litter.Soil organic matter

oxidation.

CH4

Decomposition of organic materials in reduced conditions.

Fermentative digestion by ruminant livestock.

Stored manures. Rice grown under flooded

conditions.

7

Contd…

N2O Microbial transformation of

nitrogen in soils and manures.

Enhanced where available nitrogen (N) exceeds plant requirements.

Under wet conditions.

CFC Industrial production.Consumer goods.Refrigerants. Foam blowing agents. Solvents. Fire retardants.Aerosol can

propellants.

8

Global warming potential

Global warming potential is the measure of the ability of a gas to trap thermal energy in the atmosphere for a specified period of time.

Methane and nitrous oxide are greenhouse gases (GHGs) that have a global warming potential of the atmosphere 25 times and 298 times, respectively, higher than carbon dioxide (IPCC, 2007).

GWP= (Carbon dioxide + methane × 25 + nitrous oxide × 298)

Carbon dioxide that has global warming potential is called long cycle carbon dioxide.

Because of increasing emission of nitrous oxide, the total global warming potential GWP of Indian agriculture per unit area (kg CO2 eq. ha-1 is increasing.

9IPCC, 2007

IPCC, 2014

11

Table 1. Atmospheric concentration, lifetime and global warming potential (GWP) of major greenhouse gases

Pathak and Agrawal, 2013

12

Contribution of different sectors in GHG emissions in India

41%

28%

24%

7% energy sector

agriculture

industry

others

INCCA, 2013

13

Major sources of GHGs from agriculture sector

62%

21%

13%

2%2%

Enteric Fermentation Rice Cultivation Agricultural soilsManure management Burning of crop residues

INCCA, 2013

Table 2. Present scenario of green house gases in India.

INCCA, 2013

Source CH4(million ton)

N2O(million ton)

CO2 eq. (million ton)

Enteric fermentation 10.10 - 21.09

Manure management 0.12 - 2.44

Rice cultivation 3.37 - 84.24

Agricultural Soil - 0.22 64.7

Crop Residue Burning 0.25 0.01 8.21

Total 13.84 0.23 371.68

15

Some facts…..Long cycle carbon dioxide: Product of combustion or degradation of

substances of ancient carbon which was not available to reach the atmosphere easily, for example carbon in fossil fuel (Smith et al., 2001).

Short cycle carbon dioxide: Carbon that completes its cycle fast and is

available to be taken up by plants when degraded aerobically by microorganisms (Lou & Nair, 2009).

Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh emit higher amount of N2O-N because of higher nitrogen fertilizer use (Singh et al., 2012).

West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Bihar, Jharkhand and North-eastern States emit more amount of methane due to higher rice cultivation (Singh et al., 2012) .

16

Contd..Tillage contributes CO2 through the rapid organic matter

decomposition due to exposure of larger surface area to increased oxygen supply.

Tillage almost doubles the rate of decline in soil organic carbon levels in the top 20 cm of soil.

Every litre of diesel fuel used by tillage machinery and irrigation pumps also contribute 2.6 Kg CO2 to the atmosphere.

Thus, nearly 400 Kg CO2 is generated assuming an annual use of 150 litres diesel in the conventional Rice-Wheat system.

Kumar et al., 2012

17IPCC, 2010

18

OPPORTUNITIES FOR MITIGATION

Reducing emissions

Enhancing removals/carbon

sequestration

Avoiding emissions

19

1. Reducing emissions

Agriculture releases to the atmosphere significant amounts of CO2, CH4 or N2O.

The fluxes of these gases can be reduced by more efficient management of carbon and nitrogen flows in agricultural ecosystems(Paustian et al., 2004).

Practices that deliver added N more efficiently to crops often reduce N2O emissions (Bouwman, 2008), and managing livestock to make most efficient use of feeds often reduces amounts of CH4 produced (Clemens and Ahlgrimm, 2007).

The approaches that best reduce emissions depend on local conditions, and therefore, vary from region to region.

20

2. Enhancing removals

Agricultural ecosystems hold large carbon reserves (IPCC, 2001a), mostly in soil organic matter.

Historically, these systems have lost more than 50 Pg C but some of this carbon lost can be recovered through improved management, thereby withdrawing atmospheric CO2.

Any practice that increases the photosynthetic input of carbon and/or slows the return of stored carbon to CO2 via respiration, fire or erosion will increase carbon reserves, thereby ‘sequestering’ carbon or building carbon ‘sinks’.

Significant amounts of vegetative carbon can also be stored in agro-forestry systems or other perennial plantings on agricultural lands (Albrecht and Kandji, 2003).

Agricultural lands also remove CH4 from the atmosphere by oxidation but less than forests (Tate et al., 2006).

21

3. Avoiding emissions

Crops and residues from agricultural lands can be used as a source of fuel, either directly or after conversion to fuels such as ethanol or diesel (Schneider and McCarl, 2003; Cannell, 2003).

These bio-energy feedstocks still release CO2 upon combustion, but now the carbon is of recent atmospheric origin (via photosynthesis), rather than from fossil carbon.

The net benefit of these bio-energy sources to the atmosphere is equal to the fossil-derived emissions displaced, less any emissions from producing, transporting, and processing.

GHG emissions, notably CO2, can also be avoided by agricultural management practices that forestall the cultivation of new lands now under forest, grassland, or other non-agricultural vegetation (Foley et al., 2005).

22

Mitigation technologies

Cropland management

Grazing land management

Management of organic soil

Restoration of degraded land

Livestock management

Manure management

Bioenergy

23

Crop land management1. Agronomy2. Nutrient management3. Tillage and residue management4. Water management5. Rice management6. Agroforestry7. Land use change8. Avoiding Biomass burning

The most obvious way to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere would be to follow management practices that reduce the oxidation of soil organic matter and increase sequestration.

The mineralization of C from soil organic matter follows an exponential pattern.

A simple model to predict the rate of change of C is:

dC/dt = a - kC

k= decomposition constant, C= Carbon content of a given soil at time t, a= accretion constant reflecting the amount of C added to the soil through

agricultural operations

Srinivas & Sridevi, 200524

Table 3. Conditions causing low and high decomposition rate constants (k).

Low k High kNatural ecosystems Deforestation

Manmade forests Cultivation of marginal lands

Cultivation of prime land Biomass burning

Science based agriculture with judicious inputs

Resource based and low input agriculture

Conservation tillage Plough-based tillage

Crop residue return Soil fertility depletion

Diversified cropping/farming systems Soil degradation

Diversified cropping/farming systems

Srinivas & Sridevi, 200525

26

Fig.1. Soil carbon pool and its interaction with the atmospheric biotic pools.

Naresh et al., 2013

27

Fig.2. Sustainable land management (SLM) options to increase net primary production and ecosystem soil organic carbon (SOC) pool to mitigate climate change Naresh et al., 2013

28

Fig.3. Global warming potential of conventionally flooded and mid season drainage technologies in rice.

Pathak & Agarwal, 2013

Fig.4. Emission of methane in direct seeded rice and transplanted rice in Jalandhar, Punjab, 2010.

Pathak and Agarwal, 2013 29

30

Table 4: Methane emission of rice as influenced by methods of cultivation and sources of nutrients at different growth stages

Naik et al., 2015Shivamogga

31

Table 5: Methane production of rice as influenced by methods of cultivation and sources of nutrients at different growth stages

Naik et al., 2015Shivamogga

32

Table 6. Methane emission as influenced by establishment techniques and sources of nutrients during kharif, 2005.

Jayadeva et al., 2009

Treatments Methane emission (mg/plant/day)30 DAS 40 DAS 50 DAS 60 DAS 70 DAS 80 DAS 90 DAS Total

Establishment techniques

M1(Transplanting) 0.104 2.17 2.60 4.42 5.38 5.80 4.10 24.57

M2 (SRI) 0.161 2.31 2.71 3.29 4.29 5.30 3.96 22.01

M3 (Aerobic) 0.116 1.54 1.66 2.27 2.69 3.10 2.69 13.18

S.Em± 0.003 0.10 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.52 0.44 0.45

CD at 1% 0.007 0.26 0.26 0.66 0.67 1.43 1.22 1.23

Sources of nutrientsS1 (RDF) 0.124 1.21 1.53 2.55 2.89 3.09 1.96 13.35

S2 (Sunnhemp+RDF) 0.128 2.19 2.33 3.17 3.90 4.59 3.05 19.35

S3 (Paddystraw+RDF) 0.126 2.46 2.99 4.23 5.42 6.21 4.56 25.99

S4 (FYM+ RDF) 0.130 2.18 2.43 3.35 4.26 5.04 3.59 20.98

S.Em± 0.001 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.14 0.40CD at 1% 0.003 0.22 0.24 0.32 0.38 0.47 0.33 0.97

33Veronica & Silvia, 2015

34Veronica & Silvia, 2015

Table 7: Emission balance of composting process and landfilling (Gg carbon dioxide; 1 Gg= 1000 Mg) for a year of green waste deposit.

Joshua & Murugesan, 2015Fig.5. Process Flow Diagram 35

36

Table 8. Gas and power generation details

Joshua & Murugesan, 2015

37

Calculation of amount of mitigated methane by

Biomethanation process

Joshua & Murugesan, 2015

38

Table 9. Influence of tillage /establishment options on grain yield and carbon sustainability index in Rice-Wheat and Maize-Wheat system

Jat et al., 2010

39

Table 10. Carbon emission, sequestration and Global warming potential in wheat with different technological options.

Technology CO2-C sequestration (kg/ha)

Total GWP (kg CO2/ha)

Conventional tillage 0 1808

Sprinkler irrigation 0 1519

Zero tillage 368 111

Integrated nutrient management

300 -171

Organic wheat 600 1880

Nitrification inhibitors 0 1663

Pathak & Agarwal, 2012

40

Table 11. Methane emission (g) and its relation with nutrientsParameter Control Treatment Av. Body wt. (kg) 429.92 ± 27.93 405.50 ± 17.61

Av. Milk production (kg day-1) 14.69 ± 0.77 14.14 ± 0.81

Methane (g day-1)** 363.05 ± 13.71 289.72 ± 15.20

Methane (g kg-1) 844.46 ± 25.41 714.45 ± 31.19

Methane per kg nutrient uptake (g)DMI* 22.67 ± 0.51 18.46 ± 0.92

DDMI* 36.08 ± 0.87 28.31 ± 1.61

OMI* 24.58 ± 0.98 19.98 ± 1.00

DOMI* 36.91 ± 1.07 29.38 ± 1.65

NDF* 74.07 ± 2.52 60.52 ± 3.12

ADF* 80.79 ± 2.79 66.35 ± 2.42

Methane per kg milk (g)* 24.89 ± 1.23 0.69 ± 1.29

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01

Jain et al., 2011

41

Fig.6. The process of natural nitrification inhibition

Upadhyay et al., 2011

42

Table 12. Natural nitrification inhibitors for higher nitrogen use efficiency, crop yield, and for curtailing global warming

Upadhyay et al., 2011

Plant species Chemical/ plant part involved

NNI effect

Neem (Azadirachta indica Adr. Juss.)

Neem seed extract and neem oil

emulsion

Increased N use efficiency, test weight and grain yield of rice

Koronivia grass (Brachiaria humidicola)

Root exudates Nitrification inhibited for ~50 days

Karanj (Pongamia glabra Vent.)

Karanjin (seed extract)

Highly efficient nitrification inhibitor (62-75 %) and N2O mitigator (92-96 %) reduction in N2O emission )

Mint (Mentha spicata L.)

Dementholated oil (1%) coated urea

Significantly retards urease activity, as well as Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter activities.

Karanj (Pongamia glabra Vent.)

Karanj cake NNI properties

Mint (Mentha spicata L.)

Essential oil Increased N use efficiency up to 30-35 %

43

Table 14. Effect of tillage on N2O emission from soil.Treatments N2O emission rate

(g ha-1 day-1)Denitrifier counts

(x 106 kg-1 )

Conventional-till (wheat) 127 440

Conventional-till (fallow) 157 2300

Zero-till (wheat) 140 1063

Zero-till (fallow) 171 2900

Aulakh et al., 2005

Treatment Total N2O (N2O-N kg-1 of soil)

Submergence Field Capacity 80% max WHC

Control 31.64 d 54.56 d 78.88 d

Urea 298.51 a 333.68 a 744.42 a

Urea-DCD 138.35 c 217.77 c 415.64 c

Urea-thiosulphate 272.80 b 313.53 b 654.75 b

Table 13. Effect of nitrification inhibitors on the N2O emission from soil.

44

Fig.7. Content of N2O-N as a function of NO3 reduction in under flooding conditions.

Sangeeta et al., 2009

Table 15. Cumulative gases production in various treated soil in 62 days of submerged incubation.

Singla & Inubushi, 2013

45

46

Singla & Inubushi, 2013

Fig.8. CO2 production potential pattern in various treated soil incubated under submerged condition

47

Fig.9. Methane emission at maturity stage Fig.10. Carbon dioxide emission at maturity stage

Suborna et al., 2015

48

Fig.11. Nitrous oxide emission at maturity stage.

Fig.12. Global warming potential of the crop sequence.

Suborna et al., 2015

49

Table 16. Interventions adopted in the seven villages of Maharashtra under NICRA projectModule Improved practices Traditional practicesCrop management 1. Adopting improved cultivars

2. Zero tillage3. Crop diversification with

legumes

1. Adopting local varieties2. Intensive cultivation with 2-3

ploughings and disc harrowing

3. No crop diversification

Water saving techniques 1. Micro irrigation2. In situ moisture conservation3. Water harvesting4. Rice cultivation (intermittent

flooding)

1. Flood irrigation2. No conservation measures

for moisture3. No water harvesting4. Rice cultivation with flooding

Nutrient Management 1. Soil test based nutrient use (Rational use)

2. Improving nitrogen use efficiency

3. Green manuring4. Composting5. Use of leaf colour charts

1. Blanket application2. No such practices3. Not practiced4. Not practiced5. Not practiced

livestock interventions 1. Biogas slurry2. Improved feeding practices 3. Improved breeding practices

1. Not practiced2. Grazing and rice straw

feeding3. Inbreeding

Srinivasarao et al., 2013

50

Table 17. Overall GHG emissions ‘with’ and ‘without’ project due application of different fertilizers and pesticides

Srinivasarao et al., 2013

51

Fig.13. Impact of improved practices over traditional practices on CO2 emissions (t CO2) in different project villages.

52

Fig. 14. Percent of total GHGs mitigation from livestock sector by adoption of different interventions.

Srinivasarao et al., 2013

53

Fig.15. Relationship between density of animals and tractors.

Dikshit & Birthal, 2010

54

Table 18. Values of the relevant parameters used in estimation of environmental contribution of draught animals.Parameters Value Consumption of diesel per tractor (tonnes/yr) 3.25Carbon fraction of diesel 0.87Fraction oxidized 0.99Conversion factor from carbon released to carbon dioxide 0.37

Dikshit & Birthal, 2010

Table 19. Prevention of greenhouse gas emission due to use of draught animal. power

Particulars Value

No. of tractor required to replace the existing stock of working animals (million)

5.95

Consumption of diesel by the required number of tractors(million tonnes)

19.34

Estimated carbon release from burning of fossilfuel (million tonnes)

16.75

Estimated prevention of carbon dioxide emission (million tonnes) 6.14

55

Conclusions Agriculture can be a potential sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide through adoption of improved recommended practices.

Carbon sequestration technique can be used to regulate carbon dioxide pool.

Aerobic rice cultivation can be practiced to reduce methane emissions.

Efficient nitrogen management can be practiced to minimize nitrous oxide emissions.

56

Contd…

Management of feed in livestock sector can minimize methane emissions.

Many adaptation and mitigation options can help address climate change, but no single option is sufficient by itself.

Mitigation can be more cost-effective if using an integrated approach that combines measures to reduce emissions.

57

Future thrustIntegrated impact and adaptation assessment including all sectors of

agriculture.

58

THANK YOU …