Carbon content of managed grasslands: PowerPoint Presentation, PPT

Carbon content of managed grasslands: PowerPoint Presentation, PPT - DocSlides

implications for carbon sequestration. Justine J. Owen. *. and . Whendee. L. Silver. Dept. of Environmental Science, Policy & Management, University of California, Berkeley, *justine_owen@berkeley.edu . ID: 676685

By alida-meadow
Watch All docs

Likes : 5
Views : 5

Download this presentation

Click below link (As may be) to get this presentation.

Carbon content of managed grasslands:

Download Note - The PPT/PDF document "Carbon content of managed grasslands:" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.

Presentations text content in Carbon content of managed grasslands:

Carbon content of managed grasslands:
implications for carbon sequestrationJustine J. Owen* and Whendee L. Silver Dept. of Environmental Science, Policy & Management, University of California, Berkeley, *justine_owen@berkeley.edu
INTRODUCTIONGrassland soils typically have considerable carbon (C) storage potential, but C storage or loss is sensitive to management. In California, C content in grassland soils spans almost an order of magnitude and is not correlated to climate or soil type (Silver et al., 2010), suggesting a dominant role for management. The effects of management practices on soil C storage and loss are not well constrained in these ecosystems. Manure application to grazed fields is a common practice which we predicted would increase soil C storage. Does long-term dairy land management affect soil C?
SITE SELECTIONWe focused on grazing systems on dairies as they are the most important land use type for rangelands in CaliforniaSoils sampled from 2 to 4 fields at 8 pasture-based dairies (A-H) in Marin and Sonoma counties, CA. Management practices sampled: manure application, plowing, aeration, seeding, irrigation, and grazing intensity. Management practices have been in use for >30 years.
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Long-term manuring of dairy pastures under Mediterranean climates does not consistently increase C storage in soilManure type may affect how much C is stored in the soilMore data are required to determine how soil C is affected by irrigation, aeration, and grazing (no significant correlations were observed at our sites)Unanswered questions: Are these fields C saturated? Are there specific strategies for consistently increasing soil C in these soils?Future work: Model dairy pastures with Century, analyze soil C fractions
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe thank Zoe Statman-Weil and Julia Cosgrove for help with soil sampling, and Andrew McDowell, Melissa Juedemann, Kristine Grace, Ryan Salladay, Nicola Overstreet for help processing samples. We also thank Becca Ryals and Marcia DeLonge for their guidance and discussion. Special thanks go to all the farmers who allowed us onto their dairies. This work was funded by a USDA NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant to the Environmental Defense Fund and the 11th Hour Project.REFERENCESSilver, W.L., Ryals, R., and Eviner, V. 2010. Soil Carbon Pools in California’s Annual Grassland Ecosystems. Rangeland Ecology & Management 63: 128-136.
40 m
1. Sample field
0-5 cm 5-10 cm 10-20 cm 20-30 cm 30-50 cm
2. Soil preparation
Sieved (<2 mm)
Organic matter fragments removed
3. Soil analysis
C and N by CN analyzer
Particle size by hydrometer
pH by 1:1 soil-water slurry
Field surface
Soil core
RESULT
1
: Soil C spanned a wide range, independent of manure application treatments.
standard error
Range of 61-223
Mg C/ha (0-50 cm depth), slightly higher than C content in CA grasslands compiled by Silver
et al (2010
)
Dairy management practices may increase soil C in grasslands.
Differences within dairies are comparable to differences between dairies

Variations in local climates and geology did not significantly affect the results
RESULT 2: Liquid manure addition led to greater soil C content than solid manure addition
standard error
Mean soil C content was the same for
manured
and non-
manured fieldsSoil C in fields with liquid manure was significantly higher than in fields with solid manure
RESULT 3:
S
oil
C content was not correlated to clay content in most of the profile.
Suggests C content at depth is associated with clays, whereas C content near the surface is not. May reflect different types of C fractions at different depths.
RESULT 4: Soil C content decreased with bulk density in most of the soil profile.
Greater bulk density may limit the transport of C into the soil
Mixing of the soil surface (0-5 cm) by trampling, plowing, and aerating causes C content to be insensitive to bulk density
25 km
Depth (cm)
0-5
5-10
10-20
20-30
30-50
no manure
solid manure
liquid manure
both