p ractices in irrigated agriculture in uzbekistan that contribute to climate change, and options to...

Practices in irrigated agriculture in Uzbekistan that contribute to climate change, and options to

mitigate climate change impacts

John Lamers and Ahmad Manschadi

Outline

The ZEF/UNESCO project in Khorezm

Contributions of selected agricultural practices to C sequestration and options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Some points for discussion

Scope of the ZEZ/UNESCO Project

Resource Use Resource Use TechnologiesTechnologies Social and Economic Social and Economic

ContextContext

Agricultural and Agricultural and Environmental PoliciesEnvironmental Policies

An interdisciplinary research and education project to conceptualize innovative options for

water and land use

ZEF/UNESCO Project

• Overall goal: restructuring concept

Human capacity building

• PhDs: 50, completed 22 (12 from Uzbekistan)

• MSc. Program: 76 M.Sc.

• 74 Bachelors at UrDU trained

• 12 Post-Docs (6 at ZEF, 1 DLR, 5 in Urgench)

• 3 INTAS Post-Docs in Urgench

• 2 Uzbek Professorships concluded

• 1 junior professorship of the Bosch foundation (5 Ph.D students

• KRASS/NGO

Agriculture and land use: 31% of global greenhouse gas emissions

GHG emissions by sector in 2004, Source: IPCC

Source: Scherr 2009

agriculture handles 40% of land:

• agriculture is contributing to CC• agriculture is directly affected by

CC • agriculture can mitigate and

adapt to CC

agriculture handles 40% of land:

• agriculture is contributing to CC• agriculture is directly affected by

CC • agriculture can mitigate and

adapt to CC

Agriculture and Climate Change

Reicosky, 2008Reicosky, 2008

Contribution of agriculture to CC

N-Fertilizer Management and global warming

Current N management practice

o Nitrogen is the most yield limiting factor (N-fertiliser → 50% of yield)

o Current N management is based on experimental results

o Farmers follow blue print recommendations

o Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) ~20-40%

N2O N2O

9

Cotton production zones in Uzbekistan

CO2 N2OCH4

?

Greenhouse gas emissions from fertilisation in irrigated agriculture

11

A M J J A S A M J J A S

10

20

30

0

25

50

75

100

100

50

00

25

50

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Soi

l Tem

pera

ture

[C]

WFP

S [%

]

20062005

Irrigation

irri

gatio

n [m

m d

-1]

N2O

-Flu

x [µ

g N

m-2h-1

]

• 80-95% of the total flux after concomitant irrigation and fertilization

Nitrous oxide emissions from cotton

AN75

AN87.5

AN87.5

AS42

AS42

U115

• 0.9 – 6.5 kg-N2O /ha/season

• 0.5 - 2.6% of the total fertilizer applied

Source: Scheer 2008

• The emissions can be attributed to

the management practice:

– high fertilizer amounts +

irrigation + high soil

temperature + microbial

activity

=> enhanced denitrification

12

When N emissions do occur?

12

NO3→ NO2 → NO → N2O → N2

Estimated N losses from cotton

13

ATG 2005 ATG 2006 Urdu LI Urdu HI ATC 2005012345678

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180 N

2O (observed)

NO (estimated) N

2 (estimated)

N-f

lux k

g/h

a/s

ea

so

n

• Highest losses: N2

• 40% of the total N-fertilizer applied

14

2-years (2005/2006)

Different fertilizer/irrigation

5 different land-use systems

Annual cropping systems:•Cotton•Winter wheat •Rice

Perennial land-use systems:•Poplar plantation•Tugai riparian forest

Field measurements (CH4, N2O)

Source: Scheer 2008

Closed chamber system (manually sampled)

CH4 and N2O emissions in different land-use

15

Rice Winter Cotton Poplar Tugai 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Wheat

Flu

x C

O 2 E

q. [k

g/h

a/d

ay]

CH4

N2O

15

CO2

CO2

N losses (gaseous + leached) are

substantial (~20-60% of the amounts

of N applied). This represents an

economic loss of about 36 million

USD for Uzbekistan, annually and a

burden for the environment

Accumulated interpretation

16

Options for effective nitrogen management in cotton, wheat & maize

17

Leaf Color Chart (LCC)- Simple tool - None destructive plant testing - Real-time nitrogen management - Easy to use- Lower accuracy- Inexpensive (1 US$/piece )

SPAD 502 / Chlorophyl meter (€400)- Quick and easy measurements- Sensor-based N management - High accuracy- None destructive plant testing - Real-time nitrogen management- Help to predict the yield potential

Greenseeker (€2,500)

The tools help farmers to determine the right time & rate of N application

Practice

•Slow releasing fertilizers •Coated fertilizers•NH4-based fertilizers•Mulching•Deeper incorporation of fertilisers•Alternative irrigation modes (drip irrigation, fertigation)•Alternative crops (increasing bio-diversity & C4 plants) and rotation and intercropping

Take home messagesTake home messagesScience

Options to mitigate CC Impacts:

Conservation agriculture in irrigated drylands

Worldwide Adoption of CA 2004Worldwide Adoption of CA 2004

Australia 9.0

Rest of the World 4.4

Brazil 23.6

Paraguay 1.7

Argentina 18.3

Total 95.5 millon ha

((millionsmillions ha)ha)

Canada 12.5

USA 25.3

Source: Friedrich 2006

What about such options in irrigated agriculture?

In collaboration with TIIM, ICARDA/Cimmyt, Cotton Research institute, FAO

Soil conservation agriculture in irrigated agriculture

Pictures by A. Pulatov

Soil conservation agriculture in irrigated agriculture

Pictures by M. Devkota

Cotton on permanent bed after cover crop

Maize on permanent beds after wheat

Wheat on permanent beds after cotton

Benefits of CA

Ergamberdiev, Tursunov

• SOM : significant increase due to mulching and no-till

• Yields not lower than conventional practices but increased due to mulching. Water savings up to 20-30%.

• Reduction machinery use and costs substantial.

• Salinity: significant decrease in the rise of soil salinity

• Seeder can be reproduced in Uzbekistan at low costs: ca. 6.5 million Soum

• Conservation agriculture is an option for the irrigated agriculture to improve soils, provides ecological sustainble agriculture basis, reduce salinity increase, improve farmers income.

CA and climate change:• adaptation through better drought

tolerance• adaptation through better water

infiltration (less flooding) • mitigation through emission

reductions (fuel, N2O, CH4)

• mitigation through carbon sequestration up to 0.2 t.ha-1.y-1 C

CA and climate change:• adaptation through better drought

tolerance• adaptation through better water

infiltration (less flooding) • mitigation through emission

reductions (fuel, N2O, CH4)

• mitigation through carbon sequestration up to 0.2 t.ha-1.y-1 C

Take home messagesTake home messagesPractice

Science

Options to mitigate CC Impacts:

Trees in irrigated drylands?

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Agroforestry Grazingmanagement

Forestmanagement

Croplandmanagement

Po

ten

tial

Car

bo

n S

equ

estr

atio

n b

y 20

40

(Mt

C y

-1)

Carbon sequestration potential of four land use systems

(Source: IPCC, 2000)

28

AFFORESTATION AS AN ADAPTIVE AND MITIGATING LAND USE STRATEGY

Conversion of the degraded cropland to tree

plantations

Resources saved can be used on productive agricultural land

Environmental services:

Improving soil Nitrogen Carbon sequestration Provision of useful products Amenity and aesthetics

Ecosystem rehabilitation

Bio-amelioration:How our 2 ha field looked in 2004

Soil EC (0-0.4 m) – 5-27 dS m-1

Total N – 0.04-0.06 %Soil organic carbon – 0.72-0.81%

Biodrainage

TimberLeaf fodder

Wood and non-wood benefits

Fruits

Dec

om

po

siti

on

Aesthetic valueRenewable

Energy

Nitrogen fixation

Carbon sequestration

Soil salinity

Soil carbon sequestration

Root development

Including farm forestry and agro forestry Including farm forestry and agro forestry

in Khorezmin Khorezm

C-total-, C-org-, C-ox-content (%) of different land-use systemsC-total-, C-org-, C-ox-content (%) of different land-use systems0-10 cm depth (n=3, Experimental tree plantation: n=12).0-10 cm depth (n=3, Experimental tree plantation: n=12). Bars with same letter are not significantly Bars with same letter are not significantly different according to ANOVA, Tukey test at p<0.05different according to ANOVA, Tukey test at p<0.05/ /

CARBON SEQUESTRATION IN SOIL AND BIOMASS (5th year of afforestation; 2,300 stems per ha)

32

20% increase in soil organic C, 2-7 t ha-1

10-20 t ha-1 of C sequestered in trees in 5 years

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

E. angustifolia P. euphratica U. pumila

Car

bo

n s

equ

stra

tio

n,

t h

a-1

woody biomass

soil (0-20cm)

140-300 USD ha-1 of potential earnings under CDM

Increased productive capacity of land establishment with

little irrigation

improved soil fertility

financially profitability

AFFORESTATION AS AN ADAPTIVE AND MITIGATING LAND USE STRATEGY

Land use rights for longer periods

Lack of incentives Poor market for

tree products Insufficient

awareness

Mitigation options in the forestry sectorMitigation options in the forestry sector

Mitigation of GHG emissions in the forestry sector Mitigation of GHG emissions in the forestry sector can be achieved through numerous measures, can be achieved through numerous measures,

such as:such as:• Afforestation (enhancing sinks);Afforestation (enhancing sinks);• Reforestation (enhancing sinks);Reforestation (enhancing sinks);• Forest management (enhancing sinks, reducing emissions);Forest management (enhancing sinks, reducing emissions);• Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

(REDD) (reducing emissions);(REDD) (reducing emissions);• Harvested wood product management; Harvested wood product management; • Agroforestry (enhancing sinks); Agroforestry (enhancing sinks); • Use of forestry products for bioenergy to replace fossil fuel use Use of forestry products for bioenergy to replace fossil fuel use

(avoiding or displacing emissions); and(avoiding or displacing emissions); and• Tree species improvement to increase biomass productivity and Tree species improvement to increase biomass productivity and

carbon sequestration (enhancing sinks). carbon sequestration (enhancing sinks).

Bio-amelioration:How our 2 ha field looked in 2004

Soil EC (0-0.4 m) – 5-27 dS m-1

Total N – 0.04-0.06 %Soil organic carbon – 0.72-0.81%

May 2006

September 2008

Take home messagesTake home messages

Perennials in farming system Increased C sequestration in soil &

and wood Restoring degraded lands &

watersheds Protecting natural forests &

grasslands Promote carbon markets

PracticeScience

Agriculture directly affected by CC

A Modelling analysis for crop production

Modeling single crop growth

500

1500

2500

3500

4500

5500

0 50 100 150 200 250

Yie

ld (k

g h

a-1

)

N rate (kg ha-1)

DAP-U-U ® U-U-U DAP-U-U (F) DAP-S-S observed mean

41

Modeling for decision making

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

21.08.06 10.10.06 29.11.06 18.01.07 09.03.07 28.04.07 17.06.07 06.08.07

Био

мас

са, т

/га

Моделлаштирилган

Тажрибада олинган

Fast Graph Output

Implications of changes in climate for agricultural systems

Implications of changes in climate for agricultural systems

Adapting Cropping Systems Management

to Climate Change –

- Modelling Analysis for Wheat production

- Research for elaborating synthetic

wheat (ICARDA/PFU)

Modelling - Translating Climate Change Scenarios onto Crop Productivity Impacts

Crop Model

Inputs:

-Weather data

-CO2 (ppm)

-Management

-Crop species

/ cultivar

Outputs:

-Crop phenology

-Crop yield

-Soil condition

(C, nutrients,

salinity etc.)

Transfer of Technology

Effective transfer of technology requires good understanding of the problemEffective transfer of technology requires good, tested technologies

Developed based on science Cross-checked and practice-tested

Effective transfer of technology requires looking beyond

Transdisciplinary implicationsAccompanying measuresEnabling ‚environment‘

Dissemination of Innovations

• KRASS (Khorezm Rural Advisory Support Service) is a self-governing, independent, non-governmental organisation.

KRASS for improving rural livelihood

The NGO KRASS was registered finally in November 2008, in the Khorezm region of Uzbekistan but mandated to work throughout the country.

Urgench State University/ZEF UNESCO Khorezm Project Khamid Olimjan street 14, 220100 Urgench, Khorezm Tel: +998 62 224 34 13, Fax: +998 62 224 33 47e-mail: kkrass@ymail.comWeb: www.KRASS.uz

More information: www.uni-bonn.de/khorezm

Further take home messages

Thanks you for your attention, but …..

We are not at the table,

But we are on the menu