CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Bioenergy crop production and managementSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology

Soil nitrous oxide flux following land‐use reversion from Miscanthus and SRC willow to perennial ryegrass

Open access
McCalmont, Jon P., Rowe, Rebecca, Elias, Dafydd, Whitaker, Jeanette, McNamara, Niall P., Donnison, Iain S.·2018·GCB Bioenergy
DOI 10.1111/gcbb.12541PMC PMC6472655
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Decarbonization of the world's energy supply is essential to meet the targets of the 2016 Paris climate change agreement. One promising opportunity is the utilization of second generation, low input bioenergy crops such as Miscanthus and Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) willow. Research has previously been carried out on the greenhouse gas (GHG) balance of growing these feedstocks and land‐use changes involved in converting conventional cropland to their production; however, there is almost no body of work understanding the costs associated with their end of life transitions back to conventional crops. It is likely that it is during crop interventions and land‐use transitions that significant GHG fluxes might occur. Therefore, in this study, we investigated soil GHG fluxes over 82 weeks during transition from Miscanthus and SRC willow into perennial ryegrass in west Wales, UK. This study captured soil GHG fluxes at a weekly time step, alongside monthly changes in soil nitrogen and labile carbon and reports the results of regression modelling of suspected drivers. Methane fluxes were typically trivial; however, nitrous oxide (N 2 O) fluxes were notably affected, reverted plots produced significantly more N 2 O than retained controls and Miscanthus produced significantly higher fluxes overall than willow plots. N 2 O costs of reversion appeared to be contained within the first year of reversion when the Miscanthus plots produced an average pregrass flux of 0.13 mg N 2 O m−2 hr−1 while for willow, this was 0.03 mg N 2 O m−2 hr−1. Total N 2 O emission from reversion increased the carbon cost over the lifetime of the Miscanthus from 6.50 to 9.91 Mg CO 2 eq. ha−1 while for the willow, this increase was from 9.61 to 10.42 Mg CO 2 eq. ha−1. Despite these significant increases, the carbon cost of energy contained in these perennial crops remained far lower than the equivalent carbon cost of energy in coal.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gcbb.12541

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Soil N2O emissions connected to cultivation disturbances are strongly driven by the legacy of the previous crop species.

    “As shown in McCalmont et al. (2018) soil N2O emissions connected to cultivation disturbances are strongly driven by the legacy of the previous crop species, and losses or gains in soil carbon are also sensitive to the initial land condition (Qin et al., 2016; Richards et al., 2017) suggesting a case for LCA studies to attribute conversion period greenhouse gas emissions to the previous crop and”

    From Measured and modelled effect of land‐use change from temperate grassland to <i>Miscanthus</i> on soil carbon stocks after 12 years (2019) · cites this paper as McCalmont et al., 2018

    The Discussion (N2O flux; page unavailable) says that, after ryegrass cultivation began, fluxes from the two crop-reversion plots did not differ significantly and cultivation for the following crop dominated any legacy of the previous energy crops. The Discussion (GHG cost of biomass production and reversion; page unavailable) does report higher earlier fluxes for Miscanthus, but attributes that difference largely to disturbance and incorporated biomass nitrogen in differing reversion pathways, not a strong crop-species legacy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Soil N2O emissions during crop establishment and reversion to the next crop represent a significant portion of the greenhouse gas balance.

    “Similarly soil N2O emissions during crop establishment and reversion to the next crop have recently been shown to represent a significant portion of the greenhouse gas balance (Holder et al., 2019; McCalmont et al., 2018).”

    From Measured and modelled effect of land‐use change from temperate grassland to <i>Miscanthus</i> on soil carbon stocks after 12 years (2019) · cites this paper as McCalmont et al., 2018

    The Results (Flux sums and GWP; page unavailable) report that reversion N2O emissions raised the six-year carbon cost by 52% for Miscanthus and 8.4% for willow. This supports a substantial contribution from reversion in the studied crops, particularly Miscanthus. The paper did not measure emissions during crop establishment, so it does not establish that part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Butterbach‐Bahl, K., Baggs, E. M., Dannenmann, M., Kiese, R., & Zechmeister‐Boltenstern, S. (2013). Nitrous oxide emissions from soils: How well do we understand the processes and their controls? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 368(1621), 20130122 10.1098/rstb.2013.0122 PMC3682742 23713120 · DOI
  2. Clayton, H., Arah, J., & Smith, K. (1994). Measurement of nitrous oxide emissions from fertilized grassland using closed chambers. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 99(D8), 16599– 16607. 10.1029/94JD00218 · DOI
  3. Clayton, H., McTaggart, I. P., Parker, J., Swan, L., & Smith, K. A. (1997). Nitrous oxide emissions from fertilised grassland: A 2‐year study of the effects of N fertiliser form and environmental conditions. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 25(3), 252– 260. 10.1007/s003740050311 · DOI
  4. Dobbie, K., McTaggart, I., & Smith, K. (1999). Nitrous oxide emissions from intensive agricultural systems: Variations between crops and seasons, key driving variables, and mean emission factors. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 104(D21), 26891– 26899. 10.1029/1999JD900378 · DOI
  5. Drewer, J., Dufossé, K., Skiba, U. M., & Gabrielle, B. (2014). Changes in isotopic signatures of soil carbon and CO2 respiration immediately and one year after Miscanthus removal. GCB Bioenergy, 8(1), 59– 65.
  6. Drewer, J., Finch, J. W., Lloyd, C. R., Baggs, E. M., & Skiba, U. M. (2012). How do soil emissions of N2O, CH4 and CO2 from perennial bioenergy crops differ from arable annual crops? GCB Bioenergy, 4(4), 408– 419. 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01136.x · DOI · Paper page
  7. Drewer, J., Yamulki, S., Leeson, S. R., Anderson, M., Perks, M. P., Skiba, U. M., & McNamara, N. P. (2017). Difference in soil methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) fluxes from bioenergy crops SRC willow and SRF Scots pine compared with adjacent arable and fallow in a temperate climate. BioEnergy Research, 10(2), 575– 582. 10.1007/s12155-017-9824-9 · DOI
  8. Dufossé, K., Drewer, J., Gabrielle, B., & Drouet, J. L. (2014). Effects of a 20‐year old Miscanthus × giganteus stand and its removal on soil characteristics and greenhouse gas emissions. Biomass and Bioenergy, 69, 198– 210. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.07.003 · DOI
  9. Elliott, E. T., Heil, J. W., Kelly, E. F., & Monger, H. C. (1999). Water filled pore space (WFPS) In Robertson G. P., Kellogg W. K., Coleman D. C., Bledsoe C. S., & Sollins P. (Eds.), Standard soil methods for long‐term ecological research (p. 77). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  10. Felten, D., Froba, N., Fries, J., & Emmerling, C. (2013). Energy balances and greenhouse gas‐mitigation potentials of bioenergy cropping systems (Miscanthus, rapeseed, and maize) based on farming conditions in Western Germany. Renewable Energy, 55, 160– 174. 10.1016/j.renene.2012.12.004 · DOI
  11. Flechard, C. R., Ambus, P., Skiba, U., Rees, R. M., Hensen, A., Van Amstel, A., … Grosz, B. (2007). Effects of climate and management intensity on nitrous oxide emissions in grassland systems across Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 121(1), 135– 152. 10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.024 · DOI
  12. Gauder, M., Butterbach‐Bahl, K., Graeff‐Honninger, S., Claupein, W., & Wiegel, R. (2012). Soil‐derived trace gas fluxes from different energy crops‐results from a field experiment in Southwest Germany. GCB Bioenergy, 4(3), 289– 301. 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01135.x · DOI · Paper page
  13. Grömping, U. (2006). Relative Importance for Linear Regression in R: The Package relaimpo. Journal of Statistical Software, 17(1), 1– 27.
  14. Hastings, A., Clifton‐Brown, J., Wattenbach, M., Mitchell, P., Stampfl, P., & Smith, P. (2009). Future energy potential of Miscanthus in Europe. GCB Bioenergy, 1(2), 180– 196. 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01012.x · DOI
  15. Hastings, A., Mos, M., Yesufu, J. A., McCalmont, J., Schwartz, K., Shafei, R., … Clifton‐Brown, J. (2017). Economic and environmental assessment of seed and rhizome propagated Miscanthus in the UK. Frontiers in Plant Science, 8, 1058. 28713395 PMC5491852
  16. Heinemeyer, A., Di Bene, C., Lloyd, A. R., Tortorella, D., Baxter, R., Huntley, B., … Ineson, P. (2011). Soil respiration: Implications of the plant‐soil continuum and respiration chamber collar‐insertion depth on measurement and modelling of soil CO2 efflux rates in three ecosystems. European Journal of Soil Science, 62(1), 82– 94. 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01331.x · DOI
  17. Hellebrand, H. J., Scholz, V., Kern, J., & Kavdir, Y. (2005). N2O release during cultivation of energy crops. Agrartechnische Forschung, 11(5), E114– E124.
  18. Heller, M. C., Keoleian, G. A., Mann, M. K., & Volk, T. A. (2004). Life cycle energy and environmental benefits of generating electricity from willow biomass. Renewable Energy, 29(7), 1023– 1042. 10.1016/j.renene.2003.11.018 · DOI
  19. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis In Solomon S., Qin D., Manning M., et al. (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (pp. 1– 996). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014). Summary for policymakers In Field C. B., Barros V. R., Dokken D. J., Mach K. J., Mastrandrea M. D., Bilir T. E., Chatterjee M., Ebi K. L., Estrada Y. O., Genova R. C., Girma B., Kissel E. S., Levy A. N., MacCracken S., Mastrandrea P. R., & White L. L. (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. part a: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1– 32). Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
  21. Jones, S. K., Famulari, D., Di Marco, C. F., Nemitz, E., Skiba, U. M., Rees, R. M., & Sutton, M. A. (2011). Nitrous oxide emissions from managed grassland: A comparison of eddy covariance and static chamber measurements. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 4(10), 2179– 2194. 10.5194/amt-4-2179-2011 · DOI
  22. Kavdir, Y., Hellebrand, H. J., & Kern, J. (2008). Seasonal variations of nitrous oxide emission in relation to nitrogen fertilization and energy crop types in sandy soil. Soil and Tillage Research, 98(2), 175– 186. 10.1016/j.still.2007.11.002 · DOI
  23. Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (1982). Random‐effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics, 38, 963– 974. 10.2307/2529876 7168798 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Mills, R., Glanville, H., McGovern, S., Emmett, B., & Jones, D. L. (2011). Soil respiration across three contrasting ecosystem types: Comparison of two portable IRGA systems. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 174, 532– 535. 10.1002/jpln.201000183 · DOI
  25. Moulin, A., Glenn, A., Tenuta, M., Lobb, D., Dunmola, A., & Yapa, P. (2014). Alternative transformations of nitrous oxide soil flux data to normal distributions. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 94, 105– 108. 10.4141/CJSS2013-008 · DOI
  26. Pacaldo, R. S., Volk, T. A., Briggs, R. D., Abrahamson, L. P., Bevilacqua, E., & Fabio, E. S. (2014). Soil CO2 effluxes, temporal and spatial variations, and root respiration in shrub willow biomass crops fields along a 19‐year chronosequence as affected by regrowth and removal treatments. GCB Bioenergy, 6(5), 488– 498. 10.1111/gcbb.12108 · DOI
  27. Palmer, M. M., Forrester, J. A., Rothstein, D. E., & Mladenhoff, D. J. (2014). Conversion of open lands to short‐rotation woody biomass crops: Site variability affects nitrogen cycling and N2O fluxes in the US Northern Lake States. GCB Bioenergy, 6(4), 450– 464. 10.1111/gcbb.12069 · DOI
  28. Parkin, T. B., & Kaspar, T. C. (2006). Nitrous oxide emissions from corn‐soybean systems in the Midwest. Journal of Environmental Quality, 35(4), 1496– 1506. 10.2134/jeq2005.0183 16825470 · DOI
  29. Parkin, T. B., & Venterea, R. T. (2010). USDA‐ARS GRACEnet project protocols, chapter 3. Chamber‐based trace gas flux measurements. In Sampling protocols. (pp. 1– 39). Beltsville, MD.
  30. Purdy, S. J., Cunniff, J., Maddison, A. L., Jones, L. E., Barraclough, T., Castle, M., … Clifton‐Brown, J. C. (2015). Seasonal carbohydrate dynamics and climatic regulation of senescence in the perennial grass. Miscanthus. BioEnergy Research, 8(1), 28– 41. 10.1007/s12155-014-9500-2 · DOI
  31. Rafique, R., Hennessy, D., & Kiely, G. (2011). Nitrous oxide emission from grazed grassland under different management systems. Ecosystems, 14(4), 563– 582. 10.1007/s10021-011-9434-x · DOI
  32. Reay, D. S., Davidson, E. A., Smith, K. A., Smith, P., Melillo, J. M., Dentener, F., & Crutzen, P. J. (2012). Global agriculture and nitrous oxide emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2(6), 410– 416. 10.1038/nclimate1458 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Roth, B., Finnan, J. M., Jones, M. B., Burke, J. I., & Williams, M. L. (2015). Are the benefits of yield responses to nitrogen fertilizer application in the bioenergy crop Miscanthus × giganteus offset by increased soil emissions of nitrous oxide? GCB Bioenergy, 7(1), 145– 152. 10.1111/gcbb.12125 · DOI
  34. Roth, B., Jones, M., Burke, J., & Williams, M. (2013). The effects of land‐use change from grassland to Miscanthus × giganteus on soil N2O emissions. Land, 2(3), 437– 451. 10.3390/land2030437 · DOI
  35. Saha, D., Rau, B. M., Kaye, J. P., Montes, F., Adler, P. R., & Kemanian, A. R. (2017). Landscape control of nitrous oxide emissions during the transition from conservation reserve program to perennial grasses for bioenergy. GCB‐Bioenergy, 9(4), 783– 795. 10.1111/gcbb.12395 · DOI
  36. Shepherd, M. F., Barzetti, S., & Hastie, D. R. (1991). The production of atmospheric NOx and N2O from a fertilized agricultural soil. Atmospheric Environment. Part A. General Topics, 25(9), 1961– 1969. 10.1016/0960-1686(91)90277-E · DOI
  37. Snyder, C., Bruulsema, T. W., Jensen, T. L., & Fixen, P. E. (2009). Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 133(3), 247– 266. 10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.021 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Weier, K. L., Doran, J. W., Power, J. F., & Walters, D. T. (1993). Denitrification and the dinitrogen/nitrous oxide ratio as affected by soil water, available carbon, and nitrate. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 57(1), 66– 72. 10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700010013x · DOI
  39. Whitaker, J., Field, J. L., Bernacchi, C. J., Cerri, C. E. P., Ceulemans, R., Davies, C. A., … McNamara, N. P. (2017). Consensus, uncertainties and challenges for perennial bioenergy crops and land use. GCB Bioenergy, 10(3), 150– 164. 10.1111/gcbb.12488 29497458 PMC5815384 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Yamulki, S., & Jarvis, S. (2002). Short‐term effects of tillage and compaction on nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, methane and carbon dioxide fluxes from grassland. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 36(3), 224– 231.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCalmont, J. P., Rowe, R., Elias, D., Whitaker, J., McNamara, N. P., & Donnison, I. S.
Affiliations
  • Aberystwyth University (GB)
  • UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (GB)
Corresponding author
McCalmont, Jon P.
ORCID
Venue
GCB Bioenergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-08-30
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
914-929
ISSN
  • 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-1707
DOI
10.1111/gcbb.12541
PMC
PMC6472655
OpenAlex
W2835221813
Cited by
16
References
5
Citations by year
2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • GCB Bioenergy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) (acceptedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/M013200/1)
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/G016216/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Peatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Keywords
soil nitrous oxide flux, Miscanthus, short rotation coppice willow, perennial ryegrass, greenhouse gas emissions, energy crops, soil nitrogen, labile soil carbon, greenhouse gas balance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review