Transcript Practices in irrigated agriculture in Uzbekistan mitigate climate change impacts

Practices in irrigated agriculture in Uzbekistan
that contribute to climate change, and options to
mitigate climate change impacts
John Lamers and Ahmad Manschadi
Outline
 The ZEF/UNESCO project in
Khorezm
 Contributions of selected
agricultural practices to C
sequestration and options for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions
 Some points for discussion
Scope of the ZEZ/UNESCO Project
Resource Use
Technologies
An interdisciplinary
research and education
project to conceptualize
innovative options for
water and land use
Social and Economic
Context
Agricultural and
Environmental Policies
ZEF/UNESCO Project
• Overall goal: restructuring concept
Human capacity building
• PhDs: 50, completed 22 (12 from Uzbekistan)
• MSc. Program: 76 M.Sc.
• 74 Bachelors at UrDU trained
• 12 Post-Docs (6 at ZEF, 1 DLR, 5 in Urgench)
• 3 INTAS Post-Docs in Urgench
•
2 Uzbek Professorships concluded
• 1 junior professorship of the Bosch foundation (5 Ph.D
students
• KRASS/NGO
Agriculture and land use: 31% of global greenhouse
gas emissions
GHG emissions by
sector in 2004,
Source: IPCC
Source: Scherr 2009
Agriculture and Climate Change
agriculture handles 40% of land:
• agriculture is contributing to CC
• agriculture is directly affected by
CC
• agriculture can mitigate and
adapt to CC
Reicosky, 2008
Contribution of agriculture to CC
N-Fertilizer Management and
global warming
Current N management practice
o Nitrogen is the most yield limiting factor (N-fertiliser → 50% of yield)
o Current N management is based on experimental results
o Farmers follow blue print recommendations
o Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) ~20-40%
N2O
N2O
Cotton production
zones in Uzbekistan
9
Greenhouse gas emissions from fertilisation in
irrigated agriculture
?
CO2
CH4
N2O
Nitrous oxide emissions from cotton
AN
75
3000
AN
87.5
AN
87.5
AS
42
AS
42
U
115
-2 -1
N2O-Flux [µg N m h ]
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
-1
25
irrigation [mm d ]
50
WFPS [%]
0
100
0
Irrigation
50
100
75
50
25
Soil Temperature [C]
0
• 80-95%
of the total flux after concomitant irrigation and fertilization
30
• 0.920 – 6.5 kg-N2O /ha/season
10
J
J
A
S applied
A
• 0.5 - A2.6%M of the
total
fertilizer
2005
M
J
J
A
2006
S
11
Source: Scheer 2008
When N emissions do occur?
• The emissions can be attributed to
the management practice:
– high fertilizer amounts +
irrigation + high soil
temperature + microbial
activity
=> enhanced denitrification
NO3→ NO2 → NO → N2O → N2
12
12
Estimated N losses from cotton
N2O (observed)
NO (estimated)
N2 (estimated)
180
N-flux kg/ha/season
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
ATG 2005
ATG 2006
Urdu LI
Urdu HI
ATC 2005
• Highest losses: N2
• 40% of the total N-fertilizer applied
13
Field measurements (CH4, N2O)
2-years (2005/2006)
Different fertilizer/irrigation
5 different land-use systems
•
•
•
Annual cropping systems:
Cotton
Winter wheat
Rice
•
•
Perennial land-use systems:
Poplar plantation
Tugai riparian forest
Closed
chamber
system
(manually
sampled)
14
Source: Scheer 2008
CH4 and N2O emissions in different land-use
CH4
N2O
Flux CO2 Eq. [kg/ha/day]
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Rice
Winter
Wheat
Cotton
Poplar
Tugai
15
15
Accumulated interpretation
 N losses (gaseous + leached) are
CO 2
substantial (~20-60% of the amounts
of N applied). This represents an
economic loss of about 36 million
USD for Uzbekistan, annually and a
burden for the environment
CO 2
16
Options for effective nitrogen management in cotton, wheat &
maize
The tools help farmers to determine the
right time & rate of N application
 Leaf Color Chart (LCC)
- Simple tool
- None destructive plant testing
- Real-time nitrogen management
- Easy to use
- Lower accuracy
- Inexpensive (1 US$/piece )
 SPAD 502 / Chlorophyl meter
(€400)
- Quick and easy measurements
- Sensor-based N management
- High accuracy
- None destructive plant testing
- Real-time nitrogen management
- Help to predict the yield potential
 Greenseeker
(€2,500)
17
Science
Take home messages
Practice
•Slow releasing fertilizers
•Coated fertilizers
•NH4-based fertilizers
•Mulching
•Deeper incorporation of fertilisers
•Alternative irrigation modes (drip
irrigation, fertigation)
•Alternative crops (increasing biodiversity & C4 plants) and rotation
and intercropping
Options to mitigate CC Impacts:
Conservation agriculture in
irrigated drylands
Worldwide Adoption of CA 2004
(millions ha)
Rest of the World 4.4
Canada 12.5
USA 25.3
Brazil 23.6
Paraguay 1.7
Argentina 18.3
Australia 9.0
Total 95.5 millon ha
Source: Friedrich 2006
What about such options in irrigated agriculture?
In collaboration with TIIM,
ICARDA/Cimmyt, Cotton
Research institute, FAO
Soil conservation agriculture in irrigated
agriculture
Pictures by A. Pulatov
Soil conservation agriculture in irrigated agriculture
Wheat on permanent beds after cotton
Maize on permanent beds after wheat
Cotton on permanent bed after cover crop
Pictures by M. Devkota
Benefits of CA
• SOM : significant increase due to mulching and no-till
• Yields not lower than conventional practices but
increased due to mulching. Water savings up to 20-30%.
• Reduction machinery use and costs substantial.
• Salinity: significant decrease in the rise of soil salinity
• Seeder can be reproduced in Uzbekistan at low costs:
ca. 6.5 million Soum
• Conservation agriculture is an option for
the irrigated agriculture to improve soils,
provides ecological sustainble agriculture
basis, reduce salinity increase, improve
farmers income.
Ergamberdiev, Tursunov
Practice
Science
Take home messages
CA and climate change:
• adaptation through better drought
tolerance
• adaptation through better water
infiltration (less flooding)
• mitigation through emission
reductions (fuel, N2O, CH4)
• mitigation through carbon
sequestration up to 0.2 t.ha-1.y-1 C
Options to mitigate CC Impacts:
Trees in irrigated drylands?
Potential Carbon Sequestration by 2040
(Mt C y-1)
Carbon sequestration potential of four land use
systems
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Agroforestry
(Source: IPCC, 2000)
Grazing
management
Forest
management
Cropland
management
AFFORESTATION AS AN ADAPTIVE AND
MITIGATING LAND USE STRATEGY
Conversion of the
degraded cropland to tree
plantations
Resources saved can be
used on productive
agricultural land
Environmental services:
 Improving soil Nitrogen
 Carbon sequestration
 Provision of useful
products
 Amenity and aesthetics
Ecosystem rehabilitation
28
Bio-amelioration:
How our 2 ha field looked in 2004
Soil EC (0-0.4 m) – 5-27 dS m-1
Total N – 0.04-0.06 %
Soil organic carbon – 0.72-0.81%
Carbon
sequestration
Wood and non-wood benefits
Biodrainage
Timber
Fruits
Aesthetic
value
Decomposition
Leaf
fodder
Renewable
Energy
Root
development
Nitrogen fixation
Soil salinity
Soil carbon
sequestration
Including farm forestry and agro forestry
in Khorezm
C-total-, C-org-, C-ox-content (%) of different land-use systems
0-10 cm depth (n=3, Experimental tree plantation: n=12). Bars with same letter are not significantly
different according to ANOVA, Tukey test at p<0.05/
CARBON SEQUESTRATION IN SOIL AND BIOMASS
(5th year of afforestation; 2,300 stems per ha)
35
Carbon sequstration, t ha-1
woody biomass
30
soil (0-20cm)
25
20
15
10
5
0
E. angustifolia
P. euphratica
U. pumila
 20% increase in soil organic C, 2-7 t ha-1
 10-20 t ha-1 of C sequestered in trees in 5 years
 140-300 USD ha-1 of potential earnings under CDM
32
AFFORESTATION AS AN ADAPTIVE AND
MITIGATING LAND USE STRATEGY
 Increased productive
capacity of land
 establishment with
little irrigation
 improved soil fertility
 financially profitability
 Land use rights
for longer periods
 Lack of incentives
 Poor market for
tree products
 Insufficient
awareness
Mitigation options in the forestry sector
Mitigation of GHG emissions in the forestry sector can be
achieved through numerous measures, such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Afforestation (enhancing sinks);
Reforestation (enhancing sinks);
Forest management (enhancing sinks, reducing emissions);
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
(REDD) (reducing emissions);
Harvested wood product management;
Agroforestry (enhancing sinks);
Use of forestry products for bioenergy to replace fossil fuel use
(avoiding or displacing emissions); and
Tree species improvement to increase biomass productivity and
carbon sequestration (enhancing sinks).
Bio-amelioration:
How our 2 ha field looked in 2004
Soil EC (0-0.4 m) – 5-27 dS m-1
Total N – 0.04-0.06 %
Soil organic carbon – 0.72-0.81%
May 2006
September 2008
Science
Practice
Take home messages





Perennials in farming system
Increased C sequestration in soil &
and wood
Restoring degraded lands &
watersheds
Protecting natural forests &
grasslands
Promote carbon markets
Agriculture directly affected by CC
A Modelling analysis for crop
production
Modeling single crop growth
Modeling for decision making
5500
3500
2500
1500
500
0
50
100
150
200
250
N rate (kg ha-1)
DAP-U-U ®
U-U-U
DAP-U-U (F)
DAP-S-S
observed mean
20
18
16
Биомасса, т/га
Yield (kg ha-1)
4500
Моделлаштирилган
Тажрибада олинган
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
21.08.06
10.10.06
29.11.06
18.01.07
09.03.07
28.04.07
17.06.07
06.08.07
41
Fast Graph Output
Implications of changes in climate for agricultural
systems
Implications of changes in climate for agricultural
systems
Adapting Cropping Systems Management to
Climate Change –
- Modelling Analysis for Wheat production
- Research for elaborating synthetic wheat
(ICARDA/PFU)
Modelling - Translating Climate Change Scenarios onto
Crop Productivity Impacts
Inputs:
Outputs:
-Weather data
-Crop phenology
-CO2 (ppm)
Crop Model
-Crop yield
-Management
-Soil condition
-Crop species
(C, nutrients,
/ cultivar
salinity etc.)
Transfer of Technology
Dissemination of Innovations
Effective transfer of technology
requires good understanding of
the problem
Effective transfer of technology
requires good, tested
technologies
Developed based on science
Cross-checked and practice-tested
Effective transfer of technology
requires looking beyond
Transdisciplinary implications
Accompanying measures
Enabling ‚environment‘
KRASS for improving rural livelihood
The NGO KRASS was registered finally in
November 2008, in the Khorezm region of
Uzbekistan but mandated to work
throughout the country.
• KRASS (Khorezm Rural Advisory Support Service) is a
self-governing, independent, non-governmental
organisation.
Urgench State University/ZEF UNESCO Khorezm Project
Khamid Olimjan street 14,
220100 Urgench, Khorezm
Tel: +998 62 224 34 13, Fax: +998 62 224 33 47
e-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.KRASS.uz
More information: www.uni-bonn.de/khorezm
Thanks you for your attention, but …..
Further take home messages
We are not at the table,
But we are on the menu