Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) e. V. CarboZALF - the carbon dynamics of arable landscapes in North-East Germany Jürgen Augustin

Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) e. V.

CarboZALF - the carbon dynamics of arable landscapes in North-East Germany

Jürgen Augustin

Olomouc October 21th 2010


atmospheric CO2

ocean

land

fossil fuel emissions

deforestation

7.7

1.4

4.13.0

2000-2008PgC

CO2 f

lux

(PgC

y-1)

Sink

Sour

ce

Time (y) 0.3 Residual

2.3

Global Carbon Project 2009; Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience

Role of terrestrial biosphere in the anthropogenic carbon cycle is unclear (reduced sink efficiency?)

0.4 - 4.7 PgC


Erosion – mean reason for uncertainties?

SINK SOURCE

NEUTRAL+1.5 Pg/yr -1.5 Pg/yr

0

→ Lal, 2004→ Stallard, 1998→ Jacinthe, 2001→ Berhe, 2007→ Smith, 2001→ Van Oost, 2007→ Ito, 2007

(Van Ost 2009)


Particularly unclear: Significance of agricultural landscapes for C sequestration and climate impact

• Influence of land management on soil and carbon dynamics (controversial discussion, e.g. in case of energy crop cultivation)?

Creation of the project „CarboZALF“

Photo: R.J. Michel

Transfer: DOC, DIC, SOCsolid

CO2 exchange

Sink?CO2 exchange

Source?

CO2 exchange

steady state

• Significance of agricultural landscape elements and/or landscape pattern on soil and carbon dynamics


CarboZALF – target results

• Multi-scale and multidisciplinary approach for the investigation of the C dynamics (process analysis + modeling)

• Procedure for the assessment of land use and climate change impact at the complete landscape C dynamics

Methodical

• Effect of current land use systems, sites, and climate at the exchange of greenhouse gases and the C sequestration in agricultural landscapes

• Landscape use systems with reduced climate impact und long-term preservation of the C sequestration potential

Answers


Approach: Coupling of process analysis and the development of multi-scale models

Development of landscape based indicators (structure-process coupled), inclusively of lateral processes

model

Quantification of C balance elements on site scalemodel +

experiment,site

Clearing up processes (mechanism) on micro scale experiment,lab


First step: Establishing of a multidisciplinary field experiment as a „seed crystal“ (CarboZALF-D)

ObjectiveClearing up the influence of the energy crop cultivation and erosion on soil functions, greenhouse gas exchange, C dynamics, and the climate impact of the north-east German glacial landscape


experimental site

• Site selection based on landscape reference and process relevance (Uckermark - north-east German glacial landscape: hummocky moraines, peaty lowlands)

• All relevant C fluxes are included (gaseous, solid, liquid)

• Manipulation experiments for the erosion

• Long term field trial (> 10a)

What is new at CarboZALF-D?


Crop rotationRotation 1winter rye/silage maize (monoculture)Rotation 2winter rye/silage maize– winter rye/food millet– winter triticale/perennial ryegrass

Fertilization only mineral fertilizer50 % mineral fertilizer and 50 % biogas slurry (related to N)100 % biogas slurry (related to N)

Soilsorthic luvisoleroded orthic luvisol eroded orthic luvisol, manipulated calcaric regosol colluviumcolluvium, manipulated

Experimental design and test factors


Work packages

• Long term measurements of soil parameter and erosion

• Long term measurements gas fluxes and global warming potential (Net CO2, N2O, CH4)

• Crop production aspects of C dynamics

• Development/test of a C dynamics model of agricultural sites

• Characterization of soil organic matter fractions

• Influence of soil microbiological activities on C turnover


C balance approach (C gas fluxes, C export/import)

Slurry Harv

SOCpin SOCpout

DOC/DICin

DOC/DICout

∆ SOC = NEE + (slurry – harvest) + (SOCpin – SOCpout) + (DOCin + DICin) – (DOCout + DICout)

GPP Reco

NEE (Net CO2 exchange) = GPP - Reco


Greenhouse gas exchange and global warming potential: chamber measurements

Manual chambers Big automated chambers: 2.5 m


Monitoring of water and matter dynamics in soils

Soil water potential

Soil moisture (FDR)

leachate (suction cups):DOC, DIC, others

Eh potentials

CarboZALF-D installations

9

1011

12

1314 15

7

65

43

2

1

Manual chambers

Automated chambers

Erosion manipulation

plots


Chamber test I: Maize 08.14.2008

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

0C

min after closing

Temp 40 cm outsideTemp 40 cm insideTemp 200 cm insideELU mV

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49

H2O

pp

t

CO 2p

pm

min after closing

CO2_Licor_M ppm

ELU mV

H2O_Li ppt

H2O and CO2 concentration after closing

Air temperature inside and outside after closing


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

pp

m C

O2

min after closing

CO2_Licor_M ppm

CO2_Licor_U ppm

CO2_Licor_D ppm

ELU mV

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849

pp

m C

O2

min after closing

CO2_Licor_M ppm

CO2_Licor_U ppm

CO2_Licor_D ppm

ELU mV

Chamber test II: Maize 08.14.2008

Vetilators turned off

Ventilators switched on


Chamber performance I: influence of herbicide application on NEE

Maize, June 11th 2009

- 50 till -40 ppm

-5 till +5 ppm

Herbicide application


Chamber performance II: CO2 uptake influneced by crop and time

Maize 09.02.2009

max. -150 ppm

Winter rye 10.30.2009

max. -10 ppm


> 95% of German peatlands

drained/rewetted

Succow 1988

Up to 5000 t C and 120 t N per ha

Stronly increased net climate impact (N2O, net CO2)

Very uncertain estimates

Already integrated: GHG exchange and C dynamics of fen peatlands (minerotrophic mires)


Changed situation Fen restoration

(rewetting and reflooding)

UnclearIs a strong reduction of net climate impact (net

CO2 sink, weak CH4 source) feasible

again?


Approach: Long term gas flux measurements by enclosure and eddy technique (net CO2, CH4, N2O)

Cropland + grassland

Alder swamp forest Rewetted + flooded fen grassland

Willow swamp forest


What is the effect of fen rewetting on trace gas exchange and global warming potential?


Zarnekow – a former fen grassland in the Peene river valley

geoportal-mv.de

A8.2NEU Advisory Group

Stakeholders

WP 8NEU Management

Coordinator

WP 1 NEU

Flux NetworkSutton, UK

A1.3 NEU Advanced Network:Fluxes, pools & budgets

Campbell, UK

A1.1 Advanced N flux

measurement methods Nemitz, UK

A1.2 Long-term N flux

methods & applicationPilegaard, DK

A.1.4 Plant & soil pools,

processes & interactionsCotrufo, I

A.1.5 Inferential N fluxes and C interactions

Sutton, UK

WP 2 NEU Ecosystem

ManipulationBeier, DK

A2.1 Forest change

(inc. afforestation)Gundersen, DK

A2.2 Shrubland change

(& natural wetlands)Beier, DK

A2.4 Arable change

(inc. drainage effects)Rees, UK

A2.3 Grassland change

(inc grazing interactions)Soussana, FR

A2.5 Manipulation Synthesis

Beier, DK

A10.4ESF N Assessment &

UNEP - INIErisman, ECN, NL

A10.3 COST Atmos-Biosphere& multiple N strategies

Domburg, NL

A10.5Input to EC,

FCCC & CLRTAPSeufert, JRC, I.

A10.2IGBP - iLEAPS

Nemitz, UK / Vesala FI

Figure 3. NitroEurope IP: Science and management structure

A8.4General AssemblyAll NEU Partners

A8.5Review & Assessment

SSC +AG

A8.3Financial

ManagementCoordinator + partners

A10.1 Innovation Highlights

& NEU PortalCEH, Sutton, UK

A8.1Science Management

Scientific Steering Committee

WP 5 NEU European

Integrationde Vries, NL

A5.1 GIS-based assembly

of input dataSeufert, JRC, I

A5.2 Deriving past, present

& future scenariosObersteiner, IIASA, A

A5.3 Developmt. of integratedmulti-component model

de Vries, NL

A5.4 Application of European-scale ecosystem models

P. Smith, UK

A5.5 Application of the multi-

component modelKros, NL

WP 10 NEU Dissemination

IP Secretariat

WP 7NEU Standards and Data Management

IP Secretariat

A9.1Summer Schools

Zechmeister, A/ Rees, UK

A7.3NEU Data Centres & TF Data ManagementBADC, de Rudder, UK

A.7.1 TF Common

measurement protocolsBeier, DK

A7.2TF Common

modelling protocolsde Vries, NL

WP 9NEU Training

IP Secretariat

A9.2Executive Training

Erisman/Domburg NL

RTD & Innovation Activities

Work Package Activity

Training Activities

Management Activities

WP 3 NEU Plot Scale

ModellingButterbach-Bahl, D

A3.1 Assessment of models & uncertainty analysis

van Oijen, UK

A3.2 Development of

core modelsButterbach-Bahl, D

A3.3 Interpretn. & simulation

of flux measurementsCalanca, CH

A3.4 Effect of past & present management decisions & adaptation strategies

P. Smith, UK

WP 4NEU Landscape

AnalysisCellier, FR

A4.1 Landscape Inventories

Cellier, FR

A4.3Landscape validation

measurementsTheobald, UK

A4.2Development & applic’n

of landscape modelCellier, FR

A4.4Whole-farm and

landscape decisionsOlesen, DK

WP 6 NEU Verification

Erisman, NL

A6.1 Verification & uncertnty:bottom-up NEU models

van Oijen, UK

A6.4 Improvement of IPCC methods & inventories

van Amstel, NL

A6.3 Verification of official UNFCCC inventories

Erisman, NL

A6.2 Independent inverse-

modelling of European N2O & CH4 emissions

Bergamaschi, JRC, I


Stakeholders

WP 8NEU Management

Coordinator

WP 1 NEU



Campbell, UK








Sutton, UK

WP 1 NEU



Campbell, UK








Sutton, UK

WP 2 NEU Ecosystem


A2.1 Forest change




A2.4 Arable change





Beier, DK

WP 2 NEU Ecosystem


A2.1 Forest change




A2.4 Arable change





Beier, DK




Domburg, NL

A10.5Input to EC,


A10.2IGBP - iLEAPS





SSC +AG

A8.3Financial






WP 5 NEU European







de Vries, NL


P. Smith, UK



WP 5 NEU European







de Vries, NL


P. Smith, UK




IP Secretariat


IP Secretariat

A9.1Summer Schools



A.7.1 TF Common


A7.2TF Common


WP 9NEU Training

IP Secretariat


Erisman/Domburg NL



Training Activities



Training Activities


WP 3 NEU Plot Scale



van Oijen, UK

A3.2 Development of





P. Smith, UK

WP 4NEU Landscape

AnalysisCellier, FR


Cellier, FR





A4.4Whole-farm and


WP 3 NEU Plot Scale



van Oijen, UK

A3.2 Development of





P. Smith, UK

WP 3 NEU Plot Scale



van Oijen, UK

A3.2 Development of





P. Smith, UK

WP 4NEU Landscape

AnalysisCellier, FR


Cellier, FR





A4.4Whole-farm and


WP 4NEU Landscape

AnalysisCellier, FR


Cellier, FR





A4.4Whole-farm and



Erisman, NL


van Oijen, UK


van Amstel, NL


Erisman, NL



Bergamaschi, JRC, I


Erisman, NL


van Oijen, UK


van Amstel, NL


Erisman, NL



Bergamaschi, JRC, I


Control (flooded in winter) Control (drained from spring till autumn)


Reflooded (06/2006)Reflooded (11/2005)Reflooded (7/2005)Reflooded (04/2005)Reflooded in future (2004)


07/201009/200902/200810/2007


Surprise: Much more CH4 than expected!


Methane emission 2005-2008: weak reduction on the reflooded site

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

20.01.

19.04.

06.06.

13.07.

22.08.

26.10.

09.04.

15.05.

19.06.

24.07.

28.08.

01.10.

06.11.

18.12.

12.03.

22.04.

29.05.

02.07.

06.08.

10.09.

15.10.

19.11.

27.12.

21.01.

28.02.

31.03.

05.05.

16.06.

18.08.

20.10.

30.12.

04.05.

13.07.

24.09.

23.11.

Date

µg

CH

4-C

m-2

h-1

fluctuating wt flooded

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

20.01.19.04.06.06.13.07.22.08.26.10.

09.04.15.05.19.06.24.07.28.08.01.10.06.11.18.12.12.03.22.04.29.05.02.07.06.08.10.09.15.10.19.11.27.12.21.01.28.02.31.03.05.05.16.06.18.08.20.10.30.12.04.05.13.07.24.09.23.11.

Date

µg C

H4-C

m-2

h-1

fluctuating wt flooded

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Methane emission 2005-2009: No reduction on the reflooded site!

temporarily dry


05/200706/200809/2009

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

CO

2-C

(g

m-2

a-1

)

Net CO2 exchange after flooding: sink function is suspended


GWP-J ahresbilanzen

938

2861

13671242

3389

11 55256

462

20

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

GW

P1

00

CO 2

-C e

qu

. (g

m-2

a-1

)

Z-flood Z-wet

GHG balance: flooded site is much worse than control site to this day


Arising discussion: Does flooding make sense at all?

Is increased methane emission after reflooding like a snapshot!

Short-term measurements of only a site do not permit any generalization capable statements, especially about long term effects!

Is the global warming potential permanently more negative than on the site with fluctuating water table?


litter of reed canary grass?

Which substrate is responsible for the methane formation?

old peat +/- roots?


Gas exchange measurements from substrate colums in lab incubation studies*

*together with M. Hahn-Schöfl, A. Freibauer, D. Zak, M. Minke


Main CO2 and CH4 source: reed canary grass litter (OM)

OM = Organic mud (Reed canary grass litter)

WT = old peat + rootsAT = old peat


Flooding of degraded and eutrophic fens: temporarily increase of climate impact

Intermediate conclusion

How can I avoid increased climate impact after restoration?- Water table only up to the peat surface- Promotion of helophyte development

Reason: permanent high CH4 emission, caused by flooding in combination with a high C pool of easily decomposable plant litter

The spreading of helophytes might cause a diminution of the climate impact in the long-term (net CO2 uptake, reduced CH4 emissions as a result of the shunt effect)


In many cases restoration of drained peatlands is limited by water shortage and socio-economic reasons

Problem

QuestionCan a reduction of the climate impact be reached also with an adapted land use?

Rhin-Havelluch - a drained fen area with different land use variants near Berlin

TG 3

Field research station Paulinenaue


Stakeholders

WP 8NEU Management

Coordinator

WP 1 NEU



Campbell, UK








Sutton, UK

WP 2 NEU Ecosystem


A2.1 Forest change




A2.4 Arable change





Beier, DK




Domburg, NL

A10.5Input to EC,


A10.2IGBP - iLEAPS





SSC +AG

A8.3Financial






WP 5 NEU European







de Vries, NL


P. Smith, UK




IP Secretariat


IP Secretariat

A9.1Summer Schools



A.7.1 TF Common


A7.2TF Common


WP 9NEU Training

IP Secretariat


Erisman/Domburg NL



Training Activities


WP 3 NEU Plot Scale



van Oijen, UK

A3.2 Development of





P. Smith, UK

WP 4NEU Landscape

AnalysisCellier, FR


Cellier, FR





A4.4Whole-farm and



Erisman, NL


van Oijen, UK


van Amstel, NL


Erisman, NL



Bergamaschi, JRC, I


Stakeholders

WP 8NEU Management

Coordinator

WP 1 NEU



Campbell, UK








Sutton, UK

WP 1 NEU



Campbell, UK








Sutton, UK

WP 2 NEU Ecosystem


A2.1 Forest change




A2.4 Arable change





Beier, DK

WP 2 NEU Ecosystem


A2.1 Forest change




A2.4 Arable change





Beier, DK




Domburg, NL

A10.5Input to EC,


A10.2IGBP - iLEAPS





SSC +AG

A8.3Financial






WP 5 NEU European







de Vries, NL


P. Smith, UK



WP 5 NEU European







de Vries, NL


P. Smith, UK




IP Secretariat


IP Secretariat

A9.1Summer Schools



A.7.1 TF Common


A7.2TF Common


WP 9NEU Training

IP Secretariat


Erisman/Domburg NL



Training Activities



Training Activities


WP 3 NEU Plot Scale



van Oijen, UK

A3.2 Development of





P. Smith, UK

WP 4NEU Landscape

AnalysisCellier, FR


Cellier, FR





A4.4Whole-farm and


WP 3 NEU Plot Scale



van Oijen, UK

A3.2 Development of





P. Smith, UK

WP 3 NEU Plot Scale



van Oijen, UK

A3.2 Development of





P. Smith, UK

WP 4NEU Landscape

AnalysisCellier, FR


Cellier, FR





A4.4Whole-farm and


WP 4NEU Landscape

AnalysisCellier, FR


Cellier, FR





A4.4Whole-farm and



Erisman, NL


van Oijen, UK


van Amstel, NL


Erisman, NL



Bergamaschi, JRC, I


Erisman, NL


van Oijen, UK


van Amstel, NL


Erisman, NL



Bergamaschi, JRC, I

Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung (ZALF) e. V.

Experimental Variants

• Meadow extensive (1 cut)

• Meadow middle (reed canary grass, 3 cuts)

• Pasture (extensive, middle, intensive, partly simulated)

• cattle tracks

• cropland (maize?)

(the same spectrum parallel on histosols with lower C content)


„Drained“ fen site 2007: flooded, flooded, flooded…


2008 – strongly swaying groundwater table

September

January


Annual CH4-C fluxes: influenced very strongly by the groundwater

Threshold

Mean groundwater table (cm)


Annual net CO2-C losses: In the dry year 2008 much higher than in the wet year 2007

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

g CO

2-C m

-2 a

-1


Pasture extens 2007

Pasture mid 2007

Meadow mid 2007

Pasture intens 2007

Meadow extens 2007Meadow mid 2008

Pasture mid 2008

Pasture extens 2008

Meadow extens 2008

Maize 2008

Pasture intens 2008

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20

mean groundwater table (cm below floor)

g C

O2-C

-Äqu

ival

m-2

a -1

CH4 dominatesN2O and CO2 dominate

N2O contri. 26-44%

GHG balances are influenced by ground water level, weather and land use at the same time

Meadow extens 2007

Pasture intens 2007

Meadow mid 2007

Pasture mid 2007

Pasture extens 2007

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20

mean groundwater table (cm below floor)

g C

O2-C

-Äqu

ival

m-2

a -1

CH4 dominates


-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

extensive meadow middle meadow (reed canary grass)

g C

O2-C

m-2

a-1

Ecosystem respiration (Reco) Gross primary production (GPP)CO2 balance (NEE) CO2 balance + C export

Reed canary grass has lower CO2 losses (more favourable climate impact) than extensive meadow: higher GPP at the same Reco


Negative climate impact (and heavy C losses) can be caused by quite different factor constellations

Gas exchange, GHG and C balance are influenced by groundwater table, land use, and weather simultaneously

Adapted land use (reed canary grass cultivation) could contribute to the reduction of the climate impact. However, this presupposes further check and well-considered procedure.

This drained fen site shows very high climate impact (and strong C losses)

Intermediate conclusion


Summary fen peatlands

Gas fluxes and GWP are influenced by ground-water level, land use, and weather at the same time

A reduction of the climate effect seems possible; however, requires sound knowledge

How can this be guaranteed?

Expanding of sites, long-term flux measurements, Upscaling model studies for understanding and controlling

reflooding process

Drained and newly reflooded fens can be strong sources for greenhouse gases


Photo: M. Sommer

Next step: Clearing up the role of small waters for the carbon dynamics of agricultural landscapes (“CarboAqua”)

Hot spots of C/N dynamics and gas fluxes in agricultural landscapes?

?


Outlook: from “CarboZALF” to “Carbo-Landscape”

• Separation and dynamics of the assimilate fluxes in the plant soil system

(isotope studies)

• Modeling of the interactions between a lateral matter transfer and soil C

dynamics (different scales, erosion specialists etc.)

• Including other landscape compartments: grassland, forest)

• Development of a landscape and regional model (+ urban rural relations)

• General: fund raising, integration into research networks


Thank you for attention!

Documents

Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) e. V. CarboZALF - the carbon dynamics of arable landscapes in North-East Germany Jürgen Augustin