Carbon Footprint and Driving Forces of Saline Agriculture in Coastally Reclaimed Areas of Eastern China: A Survey of Four Staple Crops

Abstract

Carbon emissions have always been a key issue in agricultural production. Due to the specific natural factors in the soil of saline agriculture, there are distinctive characteristics in saline agricultural production as compared with traditional agricultural zones. Here, we have adopted the theory of life cycle assessment and employed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) greenhouse gas (GHG) field calculation to estimate the GHG emissions, derived from the staple crop productions (i.e., barley, wheat, corn and rice). In addition, our study further analyzed the main driving forces of carbon emissions and proposed some effective measures to reduce them. Our results have showed that: (1) carbon footprint from the four crops in the study area varies from 0.63 to 0.77 kg CO 2 eq•kg −1 , which is higher than that from traditional agriculture; (2) GHG emissions from Fertilizer-Nitrogen (N) manufacture and inorganic N application have contributed to the greatest percentage of carbon footprint. Compared with traditional agricultural zones, fertilizer-N application and paddy irrigation involved with crop productions have overall greater contributions to carbon footprint; (3) carbon emissions from saline agriculture can be reduced significantly by planting-breeding combination to reduce the amount of N fertilizer application, improving the traditional rotation system, and developing water-saving agriculture and ecological agriculture.

The Tapio Decoupling Principle and Key Strategies for Changing Factors of Chinese Urban Carbon Footprint Based on Cloud Computing

“…Additionally, the IPCC has a convenient data acquisition and simple calculation process, so it is applicable to the calculation of energy carbon footprint at all scales. Based on the current energy situation in Xi’an and the feasibility of the data, the carbon footprint of Xi’an could be calculated by referring to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories [ 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Through the analysis of the carbon footprints of the four accounts of energy consumption, industrial production, solid waste, and livestock, the total carbon footprint of Xi’an was summarized in this study.…”

Determining the dominant factors determining the variability of terrestrial ecosystem productivity in China during the last two decades

“…In this study, the NPPs in natural vegetationcovered areas (grassland and forest) are generally similar to the observed NPP (Table 1). However, farmlands' NPP is significantly lower than that of the observed NPP; the main reason is the input of large amounts of fertilizers and pesticides during agricultural production for promoting crop yield (Li, Yang et al, 2018), which is not considered in the CASA model. By using remote sensing data and the CASA model, we can explore the spatiotemporal characteristics and trends of the NPP, which is beneficial to predict China's TEP.…”

Are the Agro-Ecosystems Sustainable? Measurement and Evaluation: A Case Study of Sichuan Province, China

“…Since then, the ecological footprint model has been extensively used as an essential research tool and analysis framework in sustainable development (Korkut, 2021;Ojonugwa et al, 2021;Umit, 2021;Zahid et al, 2021), socioeconomic development (Neagu, 2020;Enu and Sya, 2021), tourism development (Mehdi et al, 2012;Lin et al, 2017), and energy consumption (Sharma et al, 2021;Ullah et al, 2021). The application of the ecological footprint method in agriculture is divided into two parts: one is the impact of different agricultural production management methods on the agricultural environment, such as land use and farm management (Viglizzo et al, 2011, Hayo et al, 2007, and the second is to evaluate the sustainable utilization of agricultural resources such as water resources and arable land resources, combining the agricultural water footprint (Hoekstra et al, 2011;Wang et al, 2014), agricultural carbon footprint (Maier et al, 2017;Li et al, 2018), and crop footprint (Ferng, 2011;Budreski et al, 2016). In the ecological footprint study of China's agriculture, researchers, respectively, measured the ecological footprint and carrying capacity per capita of cultivated land, water area, grassland, and forest land in Henan (Cao, 2020), Guangxi (Zhang, 2020), and Shandong provinces (Yang et al, 2016), and all the studies found that the provinces have different degrees of ecological deficits.…”