Tillage and crop residue effects on the energy consumption, input–output costs and greenhouse gas emissions of maize crops

Lü, Xianguo; Lu, Xingneng

doi:10.1007/s10705-017-9859-5

Cited by 30 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over a whole life-cycle assessment, DT exhibited a positive net total GHG emission in terms of field emissions and energy costs, while NT tended to reduce the total GHG emissions. DT practice simultaneously increased fuel consumption and field GHG emissions [10,57,58]. Rice production in conjunction with DT practices exhibited higher GHG emissions than upland crops, mainly due to the greatly increased CH 4 emissions in paddy fields [34,65].…”

Section: Climate Change Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, NT resulted in reduced GHG emissions in the soil. This was due to the reduced fuel consumption for NT, and Lu et al (2017) considered that fuel-usage for tillage was the major producer of GHG emissions [10]. Reduced N 2 O or CH 4 emissions were an important component of the total reduction in GHG emissions, and this was especially the case in paddy fields under NT management, where there was a substantial reduction in CH 4 emissions compared with RT and DT [59,60,62].…”

Section: Climate Change Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the effects of tillage management on crop yield depend on localized climate and soil conditions, it is meaningful to evaluate the yield effects at the regional or national scale [5][6][7][8]. Meanwhile, integrated assessments of tillage alternatives in terms of their ability to mitigate climate change and sequester soil carbon (SOC), are lacking [9][10][11][12]. This relationship must be quantified to set a general framework for how soil management could potentially contribute to sustainable intensification goals while achieving food security and mitigating climate change.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some have suggested that soil N 2 O emissions are expected to be greater with NT compared to conventional DT due to soil compaction and the higher soil moisture content [23,25], while others predict fewer emissions under NT owing to reduced soil temperatures and limited soil microbial activities [32,33]. Also, GHG emissions of the fuel used for tillage should be considered because NT and RT practices significantly reduce fuel consumption [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meanwhile, labor and machine expenses for intensive tillage account for a high share of the agricultural costs [34]. For example, the yield response could be offset or exacerbated by changes in the soil, and for different crops; NT treatment provided a higher net benefit than DT for maize production [10]. Recently, the global warming cost and impacts of GHG emissions in terms of their harmful effects on the environment and human health were also added into the equation of the economic benefits [20,35].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Benefits and Trade-Offs of Tillage Management in China: A Meta-Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In China, deep tillage (DT; to >20 cm soil depth) has increased crop yields by improving soil properties, while no-tillage (NT) has been recommended to reduce the labor and machinery costs. Local farmers are willing to adopted rotary tillage (RT; harrowing to 10–15 cm depth) for easy management. However, the effects of these tillage management methods on agronomic productivity, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration, and economic return have not been quantified systematically, and their effectiveness remains in question. Here, we present a meta-analysis of the effects of these methods using 665 paired measurements from 144 peer-reviewed studies. The results indicated that DT significantly increased crop yields by 7.5% relative to RT, and even greater increases were observed in regions with low temperatures and with a wheat cropping system. In contrast, NT resulted in a yield reduction of 3.7% relative to RT, however, controlling for the appropriate temperature and long extension duration (>15 yr) could reduce yield losses and even increase the yield. Both DT and NT significantly enhanced SOC sequestration relative to RT. Adoption of DT would lead to both higher total GHG emissions (N2O and CH4) and increased energy costs, while NT reduced GHG emissions. DT management exhibited a positive net profit for all cropping systems; NT decreased the net profit for rice and wheat but increased the profit for maize. Our study highlighted the agronomic, environmental, and economic benefits and trade-offs for the different tillage methods and should enable investors and policymakers to ensure the best tillage management decisions are made depending on the location-specific conditions.

show abstract

Section: Climate Change Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Climate Change Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Benefits and Trade-Offs of Tillage Management in China: A Meta-Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Irrigation and conservation agricultural practices improve crop yield, water productivity and energetics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in Vertisols of central India

Sawant

Singh

et al. 2023

Irrigation and Drainage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The identification of suitable conservation agricultural (CA) practices plays a significant role in global food security. A 3-year (2018-2020) field experiment was conducted in Vertisols of the semi-arid tropics of central India to investigate the effects of CA practices and irrigation methods on the yield, water productivity (WP) and energetics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). A split-split plot design was used with three treatments, namely, two irrigation methods (sprinkler and furrow), three residue loads (30%, 60% and 100%) and three planting methods (broad-bed shaper-cum-planter [BBSP], zero-till planter and seed-cum-fertilizer drill) with three replications each. Sprinkler irrigation significantly improved chickpea seed yield by 2% and 5% in the second (1566 kg ha À1 ) and third years (1555 kg ha À1 ) compared to furrow irrigation.During the three experimental years, the WP of chickpeas under sprinkler irrigation was significantly higher ( p < 0.05) by 31%, 34% and 35% compared to that under furrow irrigation. Irrigation (6027 MJ ha À1 ), fertilization (1805 MJ ha À1 ) and planting (1615 MJ ha À1 ) accounted for 63%-68% of the total energy input in chickpea production. Under CA practices, it is recommended that higher returns be achieved using BBSP and a 100% residue load with sprinkler irrigation.

show abstract