Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 1 methodologies commonly underpin project‐scale carbon accounting for changes in land use and management and are used in frameworks for Life Cycle Assessment and carbon footprinting of food and energy crops. These methodologies were intended for use at large spatial scales. This can introduce error in predictions at finer spatial scales. There is an urgent need for development and implementation of higher tier methodologies that can be applied at fine spatial scales (e.g. farm/project/plantation) for food and bioenergy crop greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting to facilitate decision making in the land‐based sectors. Higher tier methods have been defined by IPCC and must be well evaluated and operate across a range of domains (e.g. climate region, soil type, crop type, topography), and must account for land use transitions and management changes being implemented. Furthermore, the data required to calibrate and drive the models used at higher tiers need to be available and applicable at fine spatial resolution, covering the meteorological, soil, cropping system and management domains, with quantified uncertainties. Testing the reliability of the models will require data either from sites with repeated measurements or from chronosequences. We review current global capability for estimating changes in soil carbon at fine spatial scales and present a vision for a framework capable of quantifying land use change and management impacts on soil carbon, which could be used for addressing issues such as bioenergy and biofuel sustainability, food security, forest protection, and direct/indirect impacts of land use change. The aim of this framework is to provide a globally accepted standard of carbon measurement and modelling appropriate for GHG accounting that could be applied at project to national scales (allowing outputs to be scaled up to a country level), to address the impacts of land use and land management change on soil carbon.

The attribution of N2O emission factors to N inputs from chemical fertilizers requires an understanding of how those inputs affect the biological processes from which these emissions are generated. We propose a detailed model of soil N transformations as part of the ecosystem model ecosys for use in attributing N2O emission factors to fertilizer use. In this model, the key biological processes—mineralization, immobilization, nitrification, denitrification, root, and mycorrhizal uptake—controlling the generation of N2O were coupled with the key physical processes—convection, diffusion, volatilization, dissolution—controlling the transport of the gaseous reactants and products of these biological processes. Physical processes controlling gaseous transport and solubility caused large temporal variation in the generation and emission of N2O in the model. This variation limited the suitability of discontinuous surface flux chambers measurements used to test modeled N2O emissions. Continuous flux measurements using micrometeorological techniques were better suited to the temporal scales at which variation in N2O emission occurred and at which model testing needed to be conducted. In a temperate, humid climate, modeled N2O emissions rose nonlinearly with fertilizer application rate once this rate exceeded the crop and soil uptake capacities for added N. These capacities were partly determined by history of fertilizer use, so that the relationship between N2O emissions and current N inputs depended on earlier N inputs. A scheme is proposed in which N2O emission factors rise nonlinearly with fertilizer N inputs that exceed crop plus soil N uptake capacities.

Improving N fertilization in croplands could minimize soil emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) and mitigate climate change. This study investigated the effects of spring vs. fall N applications of conventional vs. enhanced‐efficiency N fertilizers (EENFs) on N2O emissions and N use efficiency in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) over 2.5 yr in Alberta, Canada. Fertilizers were anhydrous ammonia and urea and the EENF formulations included urease and nitrification inhibitors and a polymer coating. We measured a fertilizer N2O emission factor of 0.31 ± 0.04%. Irrespective of N fertilizer and timing options peak N2O emissions were evident following soil thawing and major rainfalls. Because most of the annual N2O emissions were associated with soil thawing, spring‐applied N emitted half the N2O of the fall‐applied N during the second study year (P < .001). Conversely, the opposite was observed for the first study year when overall N2O emissions were 36% larger for spring‐ than fall‐applied N (P = .031) as major rainfalls occurred shortly after the spring N fertilization. Nevertheless, within this first study year, EENFs significantly reduced N2O emissions (by 26% on average; P = .019), with a tendency for 11% higher grain yield across springtime EENFs than for conventional fertilizers. Concomitantly, spring‐applied N doubled the fertilizer N recovery efficiency in the same year (P = .023). The soil at the study site inherently had high N availability (NH4 and NO3) and this probably moderated the beneficial effects of EENFs on N2O emissions and grain yields. Results suggest that spring EENFs can mitigate the risk for N2O emissions while sustaining high yields even under scenarios with high availability of native soil N.

Mitigating the greenhouse gas emissions that arise durin manure is a crucial environmental challenge. We evalu effects of liquid manure timing (fall vs. spring) and nitrifi [2-chloro-6-(trichloromethyl) pyridine (nitrapyrin) vs. 3 phosphate (DMpp)] on n 2 O emissions, soil mineral n ley (Hordeum vulgare L.) productivity, and n uptake. E established in an incomplete split-plot design in Laco AB, Canada. Repeated measurements included n 2 O flu chambers, and soil ammonium (nH 4 -n) and nitrate (nO Relative to the manured soils without nIs, the use of n significantly reduced annual n 2 O emissions by 81% w with nitrapyrin in our Lacombe site; however, this diffe in the comparable spring treatments applied during the These beneficial effects were discernable in Lacombe, wetter than Edmonton, indicating the overriding role o n dynamics and fluxes. Following a 5-mo freezing wi caused at least 64% of annual n 2 O emissions from the f these intense episodic fluxes also revealed that the effic still continued during the early spring. On average, fal the n 2 O direct emission factors by about threefold com sponding spring treatments. Thus implementing liquid m nIs at the right timing has the potential opportunity to crops and simultaneously diminish global warming effect Abbreviations: CT, control treatment where the soil was disturb without soil disturbance); DM, dry matter; DMPP, 3, 4-dimethyl direct emission factors; FMD, fall-manured soil with DMPP, FMN nitrapyrin; FMW, fall-manured soil with no nitrification inhibitors; SMD, spring-manured soil with DMPP; SMN, spring-manured so spring-manured soil with no nitrification inhibitors.

No abstract