| Literature DB >> 31351025 |
Dries Roobroeck1, Rebecca Hood-Nowotny2, Dianah Nakubulwa3,4, John-Baptist Tumuhairwe3, Majaliwa Jackson Gilbert Mwanjalolo4, Isaac Ndawula3, Bernard Vanlauwe1.
Abstract
Increasing organic matter/carbon contents of soils is one option proposed to offset climate change inducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, under the auspices of the UNFCC Paris Agreement. One of the complementary practices to sequester carbon in soils on decadal time scales is amending it with biochar, a carbon rich byproduct of biomass gasification. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), there is a widespread and close interplay of agrarian-based economies and the use of biomass for fuel, which makes the co-benefits of biochar production for agriculture and energy supply explicitly different from the rest of the world. To date, the quantities of residues available from staple crops for biochar production, and their potential for carbon sequestration in farming systems of SSA have not been comprehensively investigated. We assessed the productivity and usage of biomass waste from maize, sorghum, rice, millet, and groundnut crops; specifically quantifying straw, shanks, chaff, and shells, based on measurements from multiple farmer fields and household surveys in eastern Uganda. Moreover, allometric models were tested, using grain productivity, plant height, and density as predictors. These models enable rapid and low-cost assessment of the potential availability of feedstocks at various spatial scales: individual cropland, farm enterprise, region, and country. Ultimately, we modeled the carbon balance in soils of major cropping systems when amended with biochar from biomass residues, and up-scaled this for basic scenario analysis. This interdisciplinary approach showcases that there is significant biophysical potential for soil carbon sequestration in farming systems of Uganda through amendment of biochar derived from unused residues of cereals and legume crops. Furthermore, information about these biomass waste flows is used for estimating the rates of biochar input that could be made to farmlands, as well as the amounts of energy that could be produced with gasifier appliances.Entities:
Keywords: biomass pyrolysis; climate change mitigation; low carbon energy; natural resource management; prospective modeling; scenario analysis; soil carbon; tropical agro-ecosystem
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31351025 PMCID: PMC6916656 DOI: 10.1002/eap.1984
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Appl ISSN: 1051-0761 Impact factor: 4.657
Figure 1Map of Uganda showing the total grain production levels of maize, sorghum, rice, millet, and groundnut for individual districts, and the location of our study area.
Overview of food crops grown by farmers in the study area
| Crop | Respondents (%) |
|---|---|
| Cassava | 100 |
| Maize | 97 |
| Bean | 82 |
| Groundnut | 82 |
| Sorghum | 74 |
| Sweet potato | 70 |
| Soybean | 60 |
| Millet | 57 |
| Banana | 49 |
| Rice | 40 |
| Cowpea | 22 |
| Simsim | 18 |
| Cotton | 5 |
Note: Percentages are based on the census of 60 individuals.
Figure 2Biomass productivity and flows of residues for staple crops measured in farming systems of eastern Uganda. On the left of each Sankey diagram is yields of straw and non‐straw fractions, and on the right is the allocation of biomass from crops and availability for biochar determined through the household census. The slices in bar chart reflect the proportion of residues going to a particular usage. At the bottom of each graph are the potential rates of biochar and C amendment to soils that were quantified based on mean conversion factors from peer‐reviewed literature. Values are means and standard deviations from sampling quadrats. DM, dry mass.
Allocation of crop residues to major types of use purposes by farmers in the study area
| Crop and residue | Usage (respondents %) | Available for biochar | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AF | CN | MI | CF | ||
| Maize | |||||
| Straw | 38 | 3 | 20 | 92 | 39 |
| Shank | 0 | 0 | 0 | 98 | 100 |
| Sorghum | |||||
| Straw | 13 | 27 | 0 | 10 | 60 |
| Chaff | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Rice | |||||
| Straw | 13 | 30 | 5 | 0 | 52 |
| Husk | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 88 |
| Millet | |||||
| Straw | 5 | 30 | 8 | 0 | 57 |
| Chaff | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Groundnut | |||||
| Straw | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Shell | 0 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 95 |
Notes: Percentages are based on the census of 60 individuals. AF, animal fodder; CF, cooking fuel; CN, construction; MI, mulching or incorporation.
Difference with sum of AF, CN, and MI.
Figure 3Models for prospective quantification of crop biomass yields using grain productivity records. Each plot is showing the goodness of fit between measured and predicted productivity of crop residues. Different symbols display the two subsets of data used for either model development or validation. RSE, residual standard error.
Figure 4Simulated C sequestration in soils of major cropping systems that receive “circular” amendment of biochar from residues. Envelope curves illustrate different scenarios of competitive usage for crop residues; i.e., low, 20% of straw and non‐straw diverted; measured, allocation indicated by census; and high, 80% of straw and 50% of non‐straw diverted. The boundaries of polygons are set by decomposition factors of biochar in peer‐reviewed literature, i.e., upper, f = 3%, k 2 = 2% per year; lower, f = 8%, k 2 = 6% per year (f is the ratio of labile C in biochar and k2 is the fraction of the stable carbon pool that is mineralized every year). Diagonal lines show a constant increase in soil C stocks of 0.6 Mg·ha−1·yr−1, the “4 per mille” target.
Total annual residue production from the five studied crops in Uganda forecasted using models based on grain yields
| Crop | Production (Gg DM) | Amount of biochar C (Gg DM) competitive residue usage | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grain | Straw | Shank, Chaff, or Shell | Low | Measured | High | |
| Maize | 2,663 | |||||
| Minimum | 3,990 | 1,652 | 928 | 678 | 232 | |
| Maximum | 4,542 | 1,853 | 1,051 | 765 | 263 | |
| Sorghum | 315 | |||||
| Minimum | 431 | 116 | 82.5 | 70.7 | 20.6 | |
| Maximum | 539 | 155 | 105 | 90.3 | 26.2 | |
| Rice | 247 | |||||
| Minimum | 302 | 99.2 | 51.5 | 41.0 | 12.9 | |
| Maximum | 355 | 104 | 58.4 | 45.9 | 14.6 | |
| Millet | 234 | |||||
| Minimum | 335 | 56.1 | 48.0 | 39.3 | 12.0 | |
| Maximum | 417 | 56.4 | 57.5 | 46.1 | 14.4 | |
| Groundnut | 85 | |||||
| Minimum | 121 | 54.4 | 10.2 | 12.7 | 2.5 | |
| Maximum | 149 | 68.3 | 12.8 | 15.9 | 3.2 | |
| Total | 3,544 | |||||
| Minimum | 5,179 | 1,978 | 1,120 | 841 | 280 | |
| Maximum | 6,002 | 2,237 | 1,284 | 963 | 321 | |
Note: The minimum and maximum production of residues straw, shank, chaff, shell) by crops are determined through cross‐validation of models. Amounts of C in crop residue derived biochar that can be generated nationwide are calculated for different scenarios of competitive usages, i.e., low, 20% of straw and non‐straw diverted; measured, allocation indicated by census; and high, 80% of straw and 50% of non‐straw diverted. DM, dry mass.
Data for 2016 retrieved from http://www.fao.org/faostat