Global warming potential of agricultural

systems with contrasting tillage and

residue management in the central
highlands of Mexico
 
Luc Dendooven 1 † *, Leonardo Patiño-Zúñiga 1 †,
Nele Verhulst 2, Marco Luna-Guido 1, Rodolfo
Marsch 1, Bram Govaerts 2
  
Luc Dendooven 1 † *, Leonardo Patiño-Zúñiga 1 †, Nele Verhulst 2, Marco Luna-
Guido 1, Rodolfo Marsch 1, Bram Govaerts 2
 
1
Laboratory of Soil Ecology, Cinvestav, Avenida Instituto Politécnico Nacional
2508, C.P. 07360 México, D.F. México,
2
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Earth and Environmental
Sciences, Kasteelpark Arenberg 20, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium.
3
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), Apdo. Postal
6 – 641, 06600, Mexico D.F. Mexico,
 

†
Both authors contributed equally to the manuscript
Introduction
  
Conservation agriculture based on (1)
minimal soil movement, (2) retention of
rational amounts of crop residue, (3)
economically viable crop rotations restores
soil fertility.
  
Conservation agriculture improves water use
efficiency, decreases soil erosion and
temperature, improves soil quality and
increases yields (Govaerts et al., 2005; 2006;
2006; 2007; 2007; 2008; Lichter et al., 2008).
  
Soil moisture content in no-till systems is
often higher than in conventional tillage
(Ussiri et al., 2009). Tillage accelerates soil
drying and heating/cooling as it disturbs the
soil surface and this increases differences in
soil temperature (Licht and Al-Kaisi, 2005;
Ussiri and Lal, 2009).
 The soil structure in soil with no-till and
residue retention is better, so that precipitation
infiltrates more rapidly in soil with less runoff
and evaporation (Elliot and Efetha, 1999;
Shaver et al., 2002).
 It is well documented that organic matter
increases in the topsoil of no-tilled soil,
mainly in the 0-5 cm soil layer, compared to
conventionally tilled soil when residues are
retained (Gregorich et al., 1995; Feller and
Beare, 1997; Six et al., 1999; Sainju et al.,
2006).
 No-till favors stable aggregates physically
protecting organic matter thereby reducing
mineralization rates (Lichter et al., 2008).
Tillage and conventional ploughing breaks up
soil aggregates so that organic matter
becomes available for decomposition (Six et
al., 2000; Bronick and Lal, 2004).
 Tillage might reduce C in the topsoil layers,
but might increase it in the deeper soil layers
as organic material is moved downwards and
mixed in the plough layer (VandenBygaart
and Angers, 2006).
Therefore, more research is needed to study
the effect of tillage practice on C
sequestration in the deeper soil layers,
especially in the (sub)tropical regions of the
world where quantitative information is
lacking (Govaerts et al., 2009).
 Soil management practices are known to
affect emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHG),
such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4)
and nitrous oxide (N2O), which contribute to
global warming (Ball et al., 1999; Omonode
et al., 2007).
Emission of CO2 is often lower in no-till than
in conventional till (Sainju et al., 2008;
Almaraz et al., 2009) although an increase in
no-till has also been reported compared to
conventional tillage (Oorts et al., 2007).
 Tillage can increase emission of N2O (Baggs
et al., 2003; Beheydt et al., 2008; Chatskikh et
al., 2008; Ussiri et al., 2009), have no effect at
all (Elmi et al., 2003; Jantalia et al., 2008) or
decrease emission of N2O compared to no-till
(Mummey et al., 1998; Robertson et al., 2000;
Smith and Conen, 2004; Steinbach and
Alvarez, 2006).
 Emission of N2O is the result of so many
interacting processes that it is difficult to
predict how no-till will affect it as compared
to conventional till.
 It can be assumed that lower temperatures,
better soil structure and less compact soils in
no-till than in conventional till will reduce
emissions of N2O, while larger soil organic
matter, moisture and mineral N contents will
favor emissions of N2O.
Although fertilizer applications are the largest
contributors to the emission of N2O in soil,
i.e. 35% as estimated for Canada, the
contribution of crop residues is also
substantial, i.e. 24% (Rochette et al., 2008).
Retaining crop residue will increase emissions
of N2O (Singh et al., 2008) and its effect will
depend on type of crop, biochemical quality
of the residue, agricultural management, and
climatic and soil conditions (Novoa and
Tejeda, 2006).
 Soils can be a net sink or source of CH4,
depending on different factors, such as
moisture, N level, organic material
application and type of soil (Gregorich et al.,
2005; Liebig et al., 2005).
Methane is consumed by soil methanotrophes,
which are ubiquitous in many soils (McLain
and Martens, 2006), and is produced by
methanogenic microorganisms in the
anaerobic locations of a soil (Chan and
Parkin, 2001).
Agricultural systems are usually not a large
source or sink of CH4 (Chan and Parkin,
2001). They are only sources of CH4 after
application of manure or other organic
materials (Johnson et al., 2007).
 Although many studies have been published
investigating the effect of no-till versus
conventional tillage, few have investigated
simultaneously the effect of tillage (zero
tillage (ZT) versus conventional tillage (CT))
and crop residues management (kept (K) or
removed (R)) on emission of CO2, CH4 and
N2O, dynamics of mineral N (NH4+, NO2-,
NO3-) and the sequestration of C in the 0-60
cm soil layer.
The objective of this study was to determine
the effect of tillage and residue management
on:
 1) soil temperature and water content
2) fluxes of CO2, CH4 and N2O,
3) dynamics of mineral N,
4) the global warming potential of each
system considering the GHG emissions from
each system, i.e. fertilizer use, tillage and
fluxes of GHG from soil, and the C
sequestered in soil.
Materials and Methods
  
Since 1991, the International Maize and
Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) has
been investigating the effect of tillage, crop
residue management and crop rotations under
rainfed conditions on crop yield, physical and
chemical soil quality, soil microbial biomass
and root rot and nematode populations.
A long-term rain-fed experiment was started
in 1991 with the size of the plots 7.5  22 m.
The experimental design consisted of 32
management practices in a randomised
complete block with two replications, but
only four treatments were considered in this
work.
 The different management practices applied
included conventional tillage (CT) versus zero
tillage (ZT) and crop residues management
with the residues retained in the field (K) or
removed for fodder (R) with a yearly rotation
of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and maize
(Zea mays L.).
 
The monitoring of fluxes of the GHG started
on the 18th of May 2008 and ended on the 4th
of August 2009. The emissions of CO2, CH4
and N2O were measured simultaneously. Four
chambers were placed per plot and used to
determine the fluxes.
 The chambers had a length of 25 cm and an
inner diameter of 20 cm and were designed as
suggested by Parkin et al. (2003) with a
coated top and a sampling port with a butyl
rubber stopper. The chambers were inserted 5
cm into the soil so that the height from the
soil surface to the top of the chamber was 20
cm.
 At sampling, covers were placed on the
chamber and sealed air-tight with Teflon tape.
Zero, 20, 40 and 60 min after the chamber
was sealed, 15 cm3 air was injected into the
PVC chamber headspace, while the gas was
mixed by flushing at least 3 times with the air
inside the chamber followed by gas collection
for analysis.
The 15 cm3 air sample was injected into 15-
ml evacuated vials closed with a butyl rubber
stopper and sealed with an aluminium cap
pending analysis.
 Soil was sampled for mineral N, i.e. NH4+,
NO2- and NO3- and water content, when GHG
emissions were determined. Soil temperature
was determined at a depth of 10 cm.
After harvest, samples were taken from the
0-20, 20-40 and 40-60 cm layer in four points
in each plot to determine total C and bulk
density.
 Calculation of the net global warming
potential (GWP) was done as in Robertson et
al. (2000), taking into account soil C
sequestration, emissions of GHG from soil
and fuel used for farm operations (tillage,
planting and fertilizer application, harvest)
and the production of fertilizer and seeds.
 The GWP of the gasses emitted was
calculated considering the CO2-equivalent
emission of 310 for N2O, 21 for CH4 and 1 for
CO2 (IPCC, 2007).
3. Results
 
3.1. Soil temperature and water content
3. Results
 
3.2. Soil carbon content
3. Results
 
3.3. Global warming potential
4. Conclusion
It was found that:
1. Tillage had no effect on emissions of CO 2
independent of residue management, but
removal of crop residue reduced the emission
of CO2 in both ZT and CT.
2. Removal of crop residue reduced the
emission of N2O in both ZT and CT, and
fluxes of N2O were lower in ZT than in CT
when crop residue was removed.
3. The emission of CH4 was not affected by
tillage or residue management.
4. The concentration of mineral N in soil was
higher in CT than in ZT when the crop residue
retained.
5. The total C content in the 0-60 cm layer
was larger in ZT than in CT when crop
residue was retained, but the opposite was
found when residue was removed.
6. The contribution of the GHG to the GWP
was similar for the different agricultural
systems and not affected by tillage. As such,
the difference between the amount of C
sequestered in the 0-60 cm layer was far
more important than the differences in
production of GHG.
7. The net GWP was neutral in ZT with
residue retention, whereas the other
management practices had a net emission of
approximately 2000 kg CO2-C ha-1 y-1.
 Acknowledgements
 
We thank Adrian Martinez and Humberto González for
technical assistance. The research was funded by ‘Centro de
Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del I.P.N.’ (Cinvestav,
México) and ‘Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz
y Trigo’ (CIMMYT) and partly by the 2009-2010 USAID
Linkage Funds. L.P.-Z. received grant-aided support from
‘Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología’ (CONACyT)
scholarship No. 213294 and N.V. from the Research
Foundation-Flanders.