Greenhouse Gas Mitigation with Agricultural Land Management Activities in the United States—A Side-by-Side Comparison of Biophysical Potential

Eagle, Alison J.; Olander, Lydia

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-394276-0.00003-2

Cited by 63 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 297 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The emission reductions in this road test, ranging from 0.07-0.26 Mg CO 2 e ha −1 yr −1 , were at the lower end reported by Eagle et al (2012) but similar to those reported by Millar et al (2010) for Midwest corn using linear direct emission factors. Nitrous oxide emission reductions from agricultural N management have been estimated to potentially provide voluntary GHG offsets on the order of 0.2-0.6 and 0.09-0.15 Mg CO 2 e ha −1 yr −1 in Eagle et al (2012) and Millar et al (2010), respectively.…”

Section: Quantify N 2 O Emission Reductions Under Applicable Protocolsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Nitrous oxide emission reductions from agricultural N management have been estimated to potentially provide voluntary GHG offsets on the order of 0.2-0.6 and 0.09-0.15 Mg CO 2 e ha −1 yr −1 in Eagle et al (2012) and Millar et al (2010), respectively. In this study, project N rate reductions of 21, 6, 11, and 35% of the baseline for SWWW-VR, HRWW-VR, HRSW-VR, and SWWW-Split N sample projects, respectively, were considered feasible N rate reductions as generated from the literature for variable or split as compared to uniform or all fall N management.…”

Section: Quantify N 2 O Emission Reductions Under Applicable Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study, project N rate reductions of 21, 6, 11, and 35% of the baseline for SWWW-VR, HRWW-VR, HRSW-VR, and SWWW-Split N sample projects, respectively, were considered feasible N rate reductions as generated from the literature for variable or split as compared to uniform or all fall N management. Specifically, the N rate reduction at this level seemed appropriate without contributing to a reduction in crop yields (CAST, 2004;Millar et al, 2010;Eagle et al, 2012).…”

Section: Quantify N 2 O Emission Reductions Under Applicable Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The performance could require an improvement in nitrogen-use efficiency over the baseline nitrogen-use efficiency. This would also improve the ability of project developers and climate policy to avoid crop yield reductions in more efficient agroecosystems and thus reduce leakage of emissions from these type of management efforts (Eagle et al, 2012). In addition, decision support to understand the conditions under which precision N management actually reduces N rate without reducing yield is needed.…”

Section: Impact Of Quantification Approaches On Offsets Generatedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Offset Quantification Protocols for Nitrogen Management in Dryland Wheat Cropping Systems of the Pacific Northwest

Brown

Lee

Kruger

et al. 2017

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the carbon market, greenhouse gas (GHG) offset protocols need to ensure that emission reductions are of high quality, quantifiable, and real. Lack of consistency across protocols for quantifying emission reductions compromise the credibility of offsets generated. Thus, protocol quantification methodologies need to be periodically reviewed to ensure emission offsets are credited accurately and updated to support practical climate policy solutions. Current GHG emission offset credits generated by agricultural nitrogen (N) management activities are based on reducing the annual N fertilizer application rate for a given crop without reducing yield. We performed a "road test" of agricultural N management protocols to evaluate differences among protocol components and quantify nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emission reductions under sample projects relevant to N management in dryland, wheat-based cropping systems of the inland Pacific Northwest (iPNW). We evaluated five agricultural N management offset protocols applicable to North America: two methodologies of American Carbon Registry (ACR1 and ACR2), Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), Climate Action Reserve (CAR), and Alberta Offset Credit System (Alberta). We found that only two protocols, ACR2 and VCS, were suitable for this study, in which four sample projects were developed representing feasible N fertilizer rate reduction activities. The ACR2 and VCS protocols had identical baseline and project emission quantification methodologies resulting in identical emission reduction values. Reducing N fertilizer application rate by switching to variable rate N (sample projects 1-3) or split N application (sample project 4) management resulted in a N 2 O emission reduction ranging from 0.07 to 0.16, and 0.26 Mg CO 2 e ha −1 , respectively. Across the range of C prices considered ($5, $10, and $50 per metric ton of CO 2 equivalent), we concluded that the N 2 O emission offset payment alone ($0.35-$13.0 ha −1 ) was unlikely to encourage a change in fertilizer N management; however, the fertilizer cost savings from adopting variable or split N management would incentivize Brown et al.Nitrogen Management for GHG Offsets adopting these practices. Therefore, the monetary incentive of adopting agricultural N management BMPs for reducing N 2 O emission should be tied to other co-benefits and existing conservation programs to encourage N rate reductions that do not limit yield, crop quality, or economic stability.

show abstract

Section: Quantify N 2 O Emission Reductions Under Applicable Protocolsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Quantify N 2 O Emission Reductions Under Applicable Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Quantify N 2 O Emission Reductions Under Applicable Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Impact Of Quantification Approaches On Offsets Generatedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Offset Quantification Protocols for Nitrogen Management in Dryland Wheat Cropping Systems of the Pacific Northwest

Brown

Lee

Kruger

et al. 2017

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…O estoque de carbono nos solos, por exemplo, em escala global, excede na proporção de 4:1 àquele encontrado na vegetação e, em particular, as áreas alagadas que correspondem a 5% de toda a área da superfície terrestre contêm aproximadamente 40% de todo o carbono orgânico do solo (COS). A avaliação da dinâmica do estoque de carbono nos solos dessas áreas alagadas assume relevante importância no contexto das mudanças climáticas globais, especificamente no efeito-estufa, devido à potencial contribuição do CO 2 proveniente do solo (SMITH et al, 2008;JOHNSTON et al, 2009;EAGLE;OLANDER, 2012;JOHNSON et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified