Montana State University Research on Soil Carbon Sequestration

1
Montana State University Research on Soil Carbon
Sequestration John M. Antle, Ag. Econ.
Econ. With the collaboration of Ross Bricklemyer,
Land Res. Env. Sci. Susan Capalbo, Ag. Econ.
Econ. Rick Engel, Land Res. Env. Sci. Perry
Miller, Land Res. Env. Sci. Presented at the
Power Generation/Industry Workshop Governors
Carbon Sequestration Working Group December 12,
2002, Helena, MT
2
Whats the problem? Atmospheric CO2 levels and
other greenhouse gases
Year

• Atmospheric buildup of CO2 has occurred over the
  last 200 years. CO2 conc. was 278 ppm, today it
  is currently 370 ppm.

3
There is new and stronger evidence that most of
the warming observed over the last 50 years is
attributable to human activities.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Climate Change 2001 The Scientific Basis.
Summary for Policy Makers, http//www.ipcc.ch/
4
(No Transcript)
5
Why have CO2 levels increased ?
Fossil fuel consumption
Land use changes and practices
tillage
tropical deforestation
6
Soil carbon is part of the global C pool

• The amount of carbon in the soils of the earth is
  about 3 times the amount in the atmosphere
• Scientists believe increasing the amount of
  carbon sequestered into the soil can impact the
  global atmospheric CO2 levels

7
What is carbon sequestration ? Carbon
sequestration can be defined as the net removal
of CO2 from the atmosphere into long-lived pools
of carbon. In terrestrial ecosystems this would
include ...
Soil organic C
trees
Inorganic C deep in soils
roots
Include pictures of trees, roots and microbes,
recalcitrant om
8
Carbon Sequestration

• CO2 removed from atmosphere by plants via
  photosynthesis
• Plant material converted to organic matter
  through microbial biochemical reactions and
  stored in soil

9
How to do this ?

• Replace conventional summer-fallow practices with
  chemical-fallow practices (i.e. no-till) that
  will
• minimize soil disturbance that lead to
  destruction (loss) of soil C
• Develop diversified sustainable annual cropping
  systems to replace current alternate year
  monoculture cropping systems

10
Tillage No-Till
11

• Hypothesis
• Agriculture can sequester C in soil at a cost
  competitive with other sources of GHG emissions
  reductions.
• Two issues
• Technical potential to sequester C
• Costs of sequestering C in soil

12
Technical Potential Changing farm land use and
management practices can restore soil C lost from
use of conventional practices
Soil C
C0
C0
CC
CV
Time
T0
T1
T2
13

• MSU research is being funded through various
  Federal agencies (NSF, DOE, EPA, USAID, USDA) and
  the Consortium for Agricultural Soil Mitigation
  of Greenhouse Gases (CASMGS), a group of nine
  land grant universities and a national
  laboratory.
• CASMGS research is organized according to four
  focal areas
• processes and mechanisms
• best management practices
• prediction and assessment
• measurement and monitoring
• MSU research focuses on areas 2, 3 and 4.

14

• MSU researchers have various activities related
  to testing this hypothesis
• measurement and modeling of soil C (Perry Miller
  and collaborators, LRES)
• remote sensing methods for measurement of soil C
  (Rick Lawrence and collaborators, LRES)
• N2O emissions associated with cropping practices
  (Rick Engel, LRES)
• rapid methods for measuring soil C and other
  soil properties (David Brown, LRES)
• how soil C is affected by the spatial
  distribution of biomass accumulation (Jerry
  Nielsen, LRES)

15

• MSU Research (cont.)
• economic analysis of soil C sequestration
  (Antle, Capalbo and collaborators, Ag Econ
  Econ)
• policy contract design for soil C
• on-farm costs of soil C
• transactions costs for soil C contracts
• soil C in developing country agriculture
• farm decision support tool for soil C contracts
  (Duane Griffith and collaborators, Ag Econ
  Econ)

16
Soil carbon sequestration studies

• Participants Dr. Perry Miller (PI), Dr.
  Richard Engel, Ross Bricklemyer, Rosie
  Wallander
• Objective Determine the effect of cropping
  intensity (annual vs. alternate year) and tillage
  (no-till vs. conventional) on soil C levels
  across different soil types and terrains.
• Location - Six farms in Golden Triangle
• Duration - 10 year

Measurements of nitrous oxide emissions will be
made at 2 of these sites !
17
Soil carbon studies field scale

• Approach four strips/treatments in each field
  (80 acre) 2 yr rotations
• conventional summer-fallow
• no-till summer-fallow
• conventional pea-wheat
• no-till pea-wheat

18
Sampling
19
Sample Analysis

• Samples analyzed for total C, total N, and
  inorganic C
• SOC total C inorganic C

20
Results effects of tillage and spatial
differences
Tillage Mean SOC 14.4 No-Till Mean SOC 18.2
Tillage Mean SOC 6.9 No-Till Mean SOC 8.8
21
Soil Emissions of N2O Why Care?

• 310 times more effective at trapping heat than
  CO2
• - powerful greenhouse gas
• agricultural soils - account for 2/3 of N2O
  emissions globally major source of N2O in nearly
  every country
• emissions are expected to rise in the next 10-15
  yrs particularly from agricultural soils
• high emissions of N2O from agricultural soils are
  blamed on inputs and practices. For example .
• - N fertilization (commercial organic
  sources)
• - summer fallow

22
Economic Research at MSUAt what cost can
farmers change practices to increase soil C?And
how can farmers be provided an incentive to
change practices?
23
Factors Determining the Cost of C Sequestered in
Agricultural Soil

• Farm Opportunity Costs What does the producer
  have to do to increase soil C, and how does that
  affect profitability?
• Change tillage practices?
• Change crop rotation?
• Change fertilizer rates?
• If a producer earns RF per hectare for a
  crop-fallow rotation, and earns RC for a
  continuous crop, the opportunity cost of
  switching from crop-fallow to continuous is (RF
  RC).

24
Factors Determining the Cost of C Sequestered in
Agricultural Soil (2)

• Rates of change in soil C associated with a
  change in management
• Changing from one practice to another increases
  soil C at an annual average rate of ?c
  tonnes/ha/yr
• E.g., in Montana, changing from a crop-fallow SW
  rotation to continuous SW gives an average value
  of ?c ? 0.4 t/ha/yr

25
Factors Determining the Cost of C Sequestered in
Agricultural Soil (3)

• Measurement Contracting costs
• Measuring ?c for each agroecozone and each type
  of practice
• Monitoring compliance with contracts
• Other transactions costs

26
Factors Determining the Cost of C Sequestered in
Agricultural Soil (4)

• Cost of Producing a tonne of C
• (farm opp. cost) contract costs
• (RF RC)/?c contract costs
• E.g. if opp cost 10/ha/yr and ?c 0.4 t/ha/yr
  then opp cost/t 10/0.4 25/t

27
Factors Determining the Cost of C Sequestered in
Agricultural Soil (5)

• A contract could specify
• Location (type of soil climate)
• Type of cropping history (SW crop-fallow)
• Type of cropping practices to be used (no-till
  corn beans, or continuous SW)
• How many years
• Carbon rate and price
• Penalty for default
• Commodity versus Service Contracts?

28
(No Transcript)
29
Table 1. Simulated Value of Carbon Contracts to
Montana Grain Producers for Changing from
Crop-Fallow to Continuous Cropping




Net Producer
Payment
Quantity Soil

Cost to

Income per
Farm Opportunity
Hectare
Level
C Sequestered

Buyer

Net Producer
Cost (/MT C)

(/ha/year)
(Million )
(/ha/yr)

(MM
T)


Income (Million )


10

7.61

26.50

201.7

66.4

4

20

12.22

52.95

647.1

303.4

10

30

15.54

78.91

1226.3

639.6

17

40

17.2
8

105.24

1818.6

1063.5

25

50

18.25

131.78

2404.9

1531.2

32


Antle, J.M., S.M. Capalbo, S. Mooney, E.T.
Elliott, and K.H. Paustian. 2001. Economic
Analysis of Agricultural Soil Carbon
Sequestration An Integrated Assessment Approach.
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
26(2)344367.
30
Marginal cost of soil C sequestration in Iowa and
Montana Antle, J.M., S.M. Capalbo, S. Mooney,
E.T. Elliott, and K.H. Paustian. 2002. A
Comparative Examination of the Efficiency of
Sequestering Carbon in U.S. Agricultural Soils.
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture
17(3)109-115.
31
This presentation and related information are
available at http//www.climate.montana.edu/http
//www.casmgs.montana.edu