Gypsum and structure lime amendments in boreal agricultural clay soils: Do climate emissions compromise water quality benefits?

IF 1 4区 农林科学 Q3 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Markku Ollikainen, Sanna Lötjönen, Tommi Tikkanen, Venla Ala-Harja, Risto Uusitalo, Petri Ekholm
{"title":"Gypsum and structure lime amendments in boreal agricultural clay soils: Do climate emissions compromise water quality benefits?","authors":"Markku Ollikainen, Sanna Lötjönen, Tommi Tikkanen, Venla Ala-Harja, Risto Uusitalo, Petri Ekholm","doi":"10.23986/afsci.143577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We examine cost-effectiveness and social net benefits of using soil amendments, gypsum and structure lime, in reducing phosphorus loading while accounting for the climate emissions from both amendments. Recent field experiments and large-scale pilots in Finland and Sweden suggest that both gypsum and structure lime improve soil structure and can reduce total P loading from clayey fields but differ as soil amendments. While gypsum does not change soil pH, structure lime helps to adjust it to a desired level. Drawing on literature, gypsum is postulated to reduce both dissolved (25%) and particulate losses (50%) of phosphorus, while structure lime is postulated to reduce only particulate phosphorus (40%). Life-cycle analysis is applied to determine greenhouse gas emissions from both soil amendments. We examine 5 and 10 years impacts on phosphorus loss by choosing doses and their timing accordingly. Both amendments provide the highest water quality benefits on erodible soils or soils with high soil phosphorus. Accounting for climate issues drastically changes the picture. Greenhouse gas emissions from gypsum production are 14.43 kgCO2e ha-1, and those from structure lime from pristine materials are 1837 kgCO2e ha-1. Cost-effectiveness of P load reduction including carbon price of GHG emissions is 59 € kg-1P for gypsum and 122 € kg-1P for structure lime. At the national level (application to 0.54 Mha), differences in greenhouse gas emissions without soil emissions are huge and in favour of gypsum (0.048 Mt and 1.04 Mt). Structure lime from recycled zero-emission materials performs well but its supply is very limited.","PeriodicalId":7393,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural and Food Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural and Food Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.143577","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We examine cost-effectiveness and social net benefits of using soil amendments, gypsum and structure lime, in reducing phosphorus loading while accounting for the climate emissions from both amendments. Recent field experiments and large-scale pilots in Finland and Sweden suggest that both gypsum and structure lime improve soil structure and can reduce total P loading from clayey fields but differ as soil amendments. While gypsum does not change soil pH, structure lime helps to adjust it to a desired level. Drawing on literature, gypsum is postulated to reduce both dissolved (25%) and particulate losses (50%) of phosphorus, while structure lime is postulated to reduce only particulate phosphorus (40%). Life-cycle analysis is applied to determine greenhouse gas emissions from both soil amendments. We examine 5 and 10 years impacts on phosphorus loss by choosing doses and their timing accordingly. Both amendments provide the highest water quality benefits on erodible soils or soils with high soil phosphorus. Accounting for climate issues drastically changes the picture. Greenhouse gas emissions from gypsum production are 14.43 kgCO2e ha-1, and those from structure lime from pristine materials are 1837 kgCO2e ha-1. Cost-effectiveness of P load reduction including carbon price of GHG emissions is 59 € kg-1P for gypsum and 122 € kg-1P for structure lime. At the national level (application to 0.54 Mha), differences in greenhouse gas emissions without soil emissions are huge and in favour of gypsum (0.048 Mt and 1.04 Mt). Structure lime from recycled zero-emission materials performs well but its supply is very limited.
北方农业粘土中的石膏和结构石灰添加剂:气候排放会损害水质效益吗?
我们研究了使用土壤改良剂(石膏和结构石灰)减少磷负荷的成本效益和社会净效益,同时考虑了这两种改良剂的气候排放。最近在芬兰和瑞典进行的田间试验和大规模试点表明,石膏和结构石灰都能改善土壤结构,减少黏土田的总磷负荷,但作为土壤改良剂,它们的作用有所不同。石膏不会改变土壤的 pH 值,而结构石灰则有助于将 pH 值调整到理想水平。根据文献推测,石膏可以减少溶解磷(25%)和颗粒磷(50%)的损失,而结构石灰只能减少颗粒磷(40%)。采用生命周期分析法确定两种土壤改良剂的温室气体排放量。通过选择相应的剂量和时间,我们研究了 5 年和 10 年对磷流失的影响。这两种土壤改良剂对易侵蚀土壤或高磷土壤的水质益处最大。考虑到气候问题,情况会发生巨大变化。生产石膏产生的温室气体排放量为 14.43 kgCO2e ha-1,而使用原始材料生产结构石灰产生的温室气体排放量为 1837 kgCO2e ha-1。包括温室气体排放的碳价格在内,石膏减少 P 负荷的成本效益为 59 欧元 kg-1P,结构石灰为 122 欧元 kg-1P。在全国范围内(应用于 0.54 公顷),不含土壤排放的温室气体排放量差异巨大,且有利于石膏(0.048 亿吨和 1.04 亿吨)。由回收的零排放材料制成的结构石灰表现良好,但其供应量非常有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Agricultural and Food Science
Agricultural and Food Science 农林科学-农业综合
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Agricultural and Food Science (AFSci) publishes original research reports on agriculture and food research related to primary production and which have a northern dimension. The fields within the scope of the journal include agricultural economics, agricultural engineering, animal science, environmental science, horticulture, plant and soil science and primary production-related food science. Papers covering both basic and applied research are welcome. AFSci is published by the Scientific Agricultural Society of Finland. AFSci, former The Journal of the Scientific Agricultural Society of Finland, has been published regularly since 1928. Alongside the printed version, online publishing began in 2000. Since the year 2010 Agricultural and Food Science has only been available online as an Open Access journal, provided to the user free of charge. Full texts are available online from 1945 on.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信