Comparison of Compaction Alleviation Methods on Soil Health and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

被引:4
|
作者
Bussell, Jennifer [1 ]
Crotty, Felicity [2 ]
Stoate, Chris [1 ]
机构
[1] Game & Wildlife Conservat Trust, Allerton Project, Leicester LE7 9XE, Leics, England
[2] Royal Agr Univ, Ctr Agr, Cirencester GL7 6JS, England
基金
欧盟地平线“2020”;
关键词
nitrous oxide; N2O; carbon dioxide; CO2; greenhouse gas; compaction; earthworms; direct drilling; bulk density; NITROUS-OXIDE; CROP PRODUCTIVITY; WATER; IMPACTS; TILL;
D O I
10.3390/land10121397
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Soil compaction can occur due to trafficking by heavy equipment and be exacerbated by unfavourable conditions such as wet weather. Compaction can restrict crop growth and increase waterlogging, which can increase the production of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. Cultivation can be used to alleviate compaction, but this can have negative impacts on earthworm abundance and increase the production of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. In this study, a field was purposefully compacted using trafficking, then in a replicated plot experiment, ploughing, low disturbance subsoiling and the application of a mycorrhizal inoculant were compared as methods of compaction alleviation, over two years of cropping. These methods were compared in terms of bulk density, penetration resistance, crop yield, greenhouse gas emissions and earthworm abundance. Ploughing alleviated topsoil compaction, as measured by bulk density and penetrometer resistance, and increased the crop biomass in one year of the study, although no yield differences were seen. Earthworm abundance was reduced in both years in the cultivated plots, and carbon dioxide flux increased significantly, although this was not significant in summer months. Outside of the summer months, nitrous oxide production increased in the non-cultivated treatments, which was attributed to increased denitrifying activity under compacted conditions.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Agricultural soil greenhouse gas emissions: A review of National Inventory Methods
    Lokupitiya, Erandathie
    Paustian, Keith
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 2006, 35 (04) : 1413 - 1427
  • [2] A comparison of methods to quantify greenhouse gas emissions of cropping systems in LCA
    Goglio, R.
    Smith, W. N.
    Grant, B. B.
    Desjardins, R. L.
    Gao, X.
    Hanis, K.
    Tenuta, M.
    Campbell, C. A.
    McConkey, B. G.
    Nemecek, T.
    Burgess, P. J.
    Williams, A. G.
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2018, 172 : 4010 - 4017
  • [3] Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Swine Effluent Applied to Soil by Different Methods
    Sistani, K. R.
    Warren, J. G.
    Lovanh, N.
    Higgins, S.
    Shearer, S.
    SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL, 2010, 74 (02) : 429 - 435
  • [4] Greenhouse gas emissions from digestate in soil
    Dietrich, Maria
    Fongen, Monica
    Foereid, Bente
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RECYCLING OF ORGANIC WASTE IN AGRICULTURE, 2020, 9 (01) : 1 - 19
  • [5] Soil's greenhouse gas emissions investigated
    不详
    TCE, 2009, (821): : 9 - 9
  • [6] Adsorptive methods in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
    Warmuzinski, K
    Tanczyk, M
    Jaschik, M
    INZYNIERIA CHEMICZNA I PROCESOWA, 2004, 25 (02): : 275 - 288
  • [7] Soil, slurry and application effects on greenhouse gas emissions
    Severin, M.
    Fuss, R.
    Well, R.
    Garlipp, F.
    Van den Weghe, H.
    PLANT SOIL AND ENVIRONMENT, 2015, 61 (08) : 344 - 351
  • [8] A Review of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Soil
    Basheer, Sana
    Wang, Xiuquan
    Farooque, Aitazaz A.
    Nawaz, Rana Ali
    Pang, Tianze
    Neokye, Emmanuel Okine
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2024, 16 (11)
  • [9] Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Road Transportation of Local Government by Calculation Methods
    Kim, Ki-Dong
    Ko, Hyun-Ki
    Lee, Tae-Jung
    Kim, Dong-Sool
    JOURNAL OF KOREAN SOCIETY FOR ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2011, 27 (04) : 405 - 415
  • [10] Weekly greenhouse gas emissions of municipalities: Methods and comparisons
    Monni, S.
    Syri, S.
    ENERGY POLICY, 2011, 39 (09) : 4755 - 4765