In this work, we show that the transition to more sustainable rural production can mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by agroecosystems without compromising revenues, particularly in the Cerrado region.(Embrapa Gado de Corte. Documentos, 216). Coordenador Roberto Giolo de Almeida. II SIGEE. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 30 nov. 2016

BERGIER, I.

BULLER, L. S.

RECH, R.

English

Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from Embrapa

245Greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in more sustainable agroecosystems in CerradoGreenhouse gas emissions mitigation in more sustainable agroecosystems in CerradoLuz Selene Buller1*, Ivan Bergier2, Rubia Rech31 Embrapa Pantanal (CNPq), 2 Embrapa Pantanal  3 Embrapa Pan-tanal (CNPq) E-mail address of presenting author*: selene_bul-ler@uol.com.brIntroductionThe challenge to produce food and fiber in quantity and quality to sustain the population in the next decades is intimately associated to the need for sustainable agroecosystems (Power, 2010; Strassburg, 2014). ‘Business as usual’ agriculture is the land use dedicated to the production of commodities like grain (soya and corn) and meat that receives government incentives and relies on nonrenewable re-sources as land, fertilizers, genetically modified and/or certified seeds and fossil resources (Buller, 2016). On the other hand, the core of sustainable agriculture is the ability to recycle materials and to use more efficiently nonrenewable and renewable resources including the provision of ecosystem services as biodiversity, carbon sink and water production (Power, 2010). The transition from business as usual to a more sustainable agriculture is closely adhered to the reesta-blishment of ecosystem services by integrated crop-livestock-forestry (Buller et al., 2015) and agroforestry systems to produce high-quality food (Buller, 2016). In this work, we show that the transition to more sustainable rural production can mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by agroecosystems without compromising revenues, parti-cularly in the Cerrado region.Material and MethodsGHG fluxes for sinks and sources were derived for enteric CH4 and 246Greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in more sustainable agroecosystems in Cerradoexcreta livestock N2O (Dong et al., 2006; World Bank, 2010), median soils CO2, CH4, and N2O fluxes in integrated agroecosystems (Buller et al., 2015), pasture CO2 fluxes and soil C fixation (Watanabe and Ortega, 2014), and C uptake of Cerrado forest (Meirelles and Henriques, 1992). Data are expressed in Mg CO2-eq/hectare/year according to GWP values (AR5-IPCC, 2013). Four levels of agricultural development were considered to a small farm with a productive area of 22.4 hectares: 1) agriculture with high technology in integrated swine-crop-pasture- eucalyptus system (ISCPE) in which about 10 heads/hectare is allowed in pasture-forestry fertigated with biodigester effluent (Buller et al. (2015); 2) ISCPE+10% SA (Sustainable Agroecosystems providing more diversified food as milk, fruits/nuts, honey, and ecosystem services, where native reforestation and nutrient recycling technologies are adopted as shown in Buller (2016); 3) ISCPE+30% SA; and 4) ISCPE+50% SA. The ISCPE considers only 5% area of native forest (Buller, 2016), whereas ISCPE+SA scenarios assume 10%, 30% and 50%, respectively, of  reforestation area to include the production of honey and fruits/nuts e.g. pequi (Caryocar brasiliense), gabiroba (Campomanesia sp), jatobá (Hymenaea L.) and cumbarú (Dpterix alata). The changes in farm economy translated into sale returns, food energetics, net emissions and profitability, all expressed per hectare, are presented in Table 1, considering mature or well-developed agroecosystems ISCPE and ISCPE+SA.Results and ConclusionsFigure 1 shows the comparison of sinks and sources strength for ISCPE toward to a ISCPE+SA by adding native forest for natural food production. Nutrient recycling technologies and native forestry recovery in SA are responsible for reduced GHG emissions and for a favorable impact in the net emissions. The relative balance for each system indicate an increase in GHG emissions mitigation along the recovery of the native vegetation, and a decrease in net emissions 247Greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in more sustainable agroecosystems in Cerradowhile including more SA (Table 1). Gradual transition from ISCPE to ISCPE+SA 10% or 30% fits the commitment assumed at COP 21 by fixing the mitigation of GHG emissions respectively in 33 or 66%. Moreover, the native tree species are sources of new production outputs (fruits/nuts and honey) that, in a gradual timeframe related to the trees growth and life cycle maintain farmers’ incomes and allow the participation in the very volatile commodities markets (Buller, 2016).Table 1 presents the calculations of sales, food energetics, net emis-sions and profitability per hectare for each agroecosystem under analysis. It is clear that the changes from ISCPE to ISCPE+SA do not change significantly farm sales and profitability. Moreover, including SA mitigates net C emissions and recovers vital ecosystem services at the farm level with the production of less energetic but healthier food.Figure 1. Relative C sources and sinks for different sustainability levels of agroecosystems.Table 1. Changes in farm sales, food energetics, net emissions and profitability.ISCPE ISCPE+ 10% SA ISCPE+30% SA ISCPE+50% SA 46962 45856 46682 45365 104.6 99.2 87.0 73.8 21.42 14.41 7.20 0.23 Total sales (USD/hectare) Food energetics (Gcal/hectare)Net emissions (Mg CO2-eq/hectare) Profitability per hectare (%) 51% 54% 61% 67% excreta livestock N2O (Dong et al., 2006; World Bank, 2010), median soils CO2, CH4, and N2O fluxes in integrated agroecosystems (Buller et al., 2015), pasture CO2 fluxes and soil C fixation (Watanabe and Ortega, 2014), and C uptake of Cerrado forest (Meirelles and Henriques, 1992). Data are expressed in Mg CO2-eq/hectare/year according to GWP values (AR5-IPCC, 2013). Four levels of agricultural development were considered to a small farm with a productive area of 22.4 hectares: 1) agriculture with high technology in integrated swine-crop-pasture- eucalyptus system (ISCPE) in which about 10 heads/hectare is allowed in pasture-forestry fertigated with biodigester effluent (Buller et al. (2015); 2) ISCPE+10% SA (Sustainable Agroecosystems providing more diversified food as milk, fruits/nuts, honey, and ecosystem services, where native reforestation and nutrient recycling technologies are adopted as shown in Buller (2016); 3) ISCPE+30% SA; and 4) ISCPE+50% SA. The ISCPE considers only 5% area of native forest (Buller, 2016), whereas ISCPE+SA scenarios assume 10%, 30% and 50%, respectively, of  reforestation area to include the production of honey and fruits/nuts e.g. pequi (Caryocar brasiliense), gabiroba (Campomanesia sp), jatobá (Hymenaea L.) and cumbarú (Dpterix alata). The changes in farm economy translated into sale returns, food energetics, net emissions and profitability, all expressed per hectare, are presented in Table 1, considering mature or well-developed agroecosystems ISCPE and ISCPE+SA.Results and ConclusionsFigure 1 shows the comparison of sinks and sources strength for ISCPE toward to a ISCPE+SA by adding native forest for natural food production. Nutrient recycling technologies and native forestry recovery in SA are responsible for reduced GHG emissions and for a favorable impact in the net emissions. The relative balance for each system indicate an increase in GHG emissions mitigation along the recovery of the native vegetation, and a decrease in net emissions 248Greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in more sustainable agroecosystems in CerradoReferencesBULLER, L. S. Diagnóstico emergético das mudanças de uso da terra e proposta de recuperação de uma área do Cerrado. Faculdade de Engenharia de Alimentos. PhD Thesis. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, 2016. 236 pp. (http://www.bibliotecadi-gital.unicamp.br/document/?code=000964517).BULLER, L. S.; BERGIER, I.; ORTEGA, E.; MORAES, A.; BAYMA-SILVA, G.; ZANETTI M. R. Soil improvement and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions for integrated crop–li-vestock systems: Case study assessment in the Pantanal savanna highland, Brazil. Agri-cultural Systems, 2015, 137: 206-219. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.11.004.DONG, H.; MANGINO, J.; MCALLISTER, T. A.; HATFIELD, J. L.; JOHNSON, D. E.; LAS-SEY, K. R.; APARECIDA DE LIMA, M.; ROMANOVSKAYA, A. Emissions from livestock and manure management, chapter 10. In: Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inven-tories, Vol 4:Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (Eds H. S.Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara & K. Tanabe). 2006, pp. 10.1–10.87. Prepared by the National Gree-nhouseGas Inventories Programme. Hayama, Japan: IGES.IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: STOCKER, T. F.; QIN, D.; PLATTNER, G.-K.; TIGNOR, M.; ALLEN, S. K.; BOSCHUNG, J.; NAUELS, A.; XIA, Y.; BEX, V.; MIDGLEY, P. M. (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2013. 1535 pp.MEIRELLES, M. L.; HENRIQUES, R. P. Produção primária líquida em área queimada e não queimada de Campo sujo de cerrado (Planaltina-DF). Acta Botanica Brasileira. 1992, 6: 3-13.POWER, A. G. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophi-cal Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences. 2010, 365: 2959-2971. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0143.STRASSBURG, B. B. N.; LATAWIEC, A. E.; BARIONI, L. G.; NOBRE, C. A.; Da SILVA, V. P.; VALENTIM, J. F.; VIANNA, M.; ASSAD, E. D. When enough should be enough: Improving the use of current agricultural lands could meet production demands and spare natural habitats in Brazil. Global Environmental Change. 2014, 28: 84-97.WATANABE, M. D. B.; ORTEGA, E. Dynamic emergy accounting of water and carbon ecosystem services: A model to simulate the impacts of land-use change. Ecological Mo-delling.  2014, 271: 113-131. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.03.006249Greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in more sustainable agroecosystems in CerradoWORLDBANK. Brazil Low Carbon Country Case Study. Washington, DC: ©World Bank, 2010. 270 pp.AcknowledgementsSpecial thanks to Enrique Ortega and Thiago Melo, CNPq, CAPES and the City Hall of São Gabriel do Oeste. This research was granted by Embrapa/MP2 and MCTI/CNPq processes 403161/2013-4  and  562441/2010-7.  Data  used  in  this  article  will  be  available  at http://tuiuiu.cpap.embrapa.br/.

Greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in more sustainable agroecosystems in Cerrado.

http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/bitstream/doc/1057395/1/ivangreenhouse.pdf

Greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in more sustainable agroecosystems in Cerrado.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from Embrapa