the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Large contribution of soil N2O emission to the global warming potential of a large-scale oil palm plantation despite changing from conventional to reduced management practices
Edzo Veldkamp
Muhammad Damris
Bambang Irawan
Aiyen Tjoa
Marife D. Corre
Abstract. Conventional management of oil palm plantations, involving high fertilization rate and herbicide application, result in high yield but with large soil greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This study aimed to assess a practical alternative to conventional management, namely reduced fertilization with mechanical weeding, to decrease soil GHG emissions without sacrificing production. We established a full factorial experiment with two fertilization rates (conventional and reduced fertilization, equal to nutrients exported via fruit harvest) and two weeding methods (herbicide and mechanical), each with four replicate plots, since 2016 in a ≥ 15-year old, large-scale oil palm plantation in Indonesia. Soil CO2, N2O, and CH4 fluxes were measured during 2019–2020 and yield was measured during 2017–2020. Fresh fruit yield (30 ± 1 Mg ha−1 yr−1) and soil GHG fluxes did not differ among treatments (P ≥ 0.11), implying legacy effects of over a decade of conventional management prior to the start of experiment. Annual soil GHG fluxes were 5.5 ± 0.2 Mg CO2-C ha−1 yr−1, 3.6 ± 0.7 kg N2O-N ha−1 yr−1, and −1.5 ± 0.1 kg CH4-C ha−1 yr−1 across treatments. The palm circle, where fertilizers are commonly applied, covered 18 % of the plantation area but accounted 79 % of soil N2O emission. The net primary production of this oil palm plantation was 17150 ± 260 kg C ha−1 yr−1 but 62 % of this was removed by fruit harvest. The global warming potential of this planation was 3010 ± 750 kg CO2-eq ha−1 yr−1 of which 55 % was contributed by soil N2O emission and only < 2 % offset by soil CH4 sink.
- Preprint
(3674 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(885 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Guantao Chen et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on bg-2023-102', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Aug 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on bg-2023-102', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Sep 2023
The manuscript submitted by G. Chen and colleagues describes a very nice study on the determination of emissions of the main greenhouse gases (GHG) CO2, N2O and CH4 and the related Global Warming Potential (GWP) from an oil palm plantation in Indonesia. The experimental setup and statistical analyses appear to be sound and the results are presented in a nice and understandable way.
I think that this study has the potential to be published in Biogeosciences – there are, however, some things that should be re-worked and re-written.
In general, it is not always clear to me which of the results have been obtained in the manuscript presented here and which have already been reported and published in previous studies. From what I understand have different publications come out of the experiment (which is great!) and the GHG measurements are part of this particular manuscript. Sentences such as ll. 317 – 318 make it difficult to understand if the emission peaks and pulses have been observed in this study (the material is presented in the supplementary material) or in the publications that are cited.
Please repeat hypotheses in the Results and Discussion sections (e.g., l. 281, l. 289, l. 316, l. 332). As the hypotheses are not numbered in the Introduction (ll. 95 – 100), it is not easy to re-call which of them was first and second when coming to the Results and Discussion.
In the Conclusions, I am missing some advice and future outlook, e.g., with regard to farmers. The suggestions presented originate mainly from another study on oil palm planation on a slightly different soil. What is the outcome of this study and how can/should this be used in practice?
Please find some more minor comments below.
Introduction
ll. 93 – 97: I cannot follow the hypothesis here: if gross N mineralization, microbial and root biomass have been observed to be the same between the two management treatments, why would the authors expect a decrease in N2O emissions? And at the same time no change in CO2 and CH4?
Material & Methods
The definition of the management zones is not entirely clear to me: The palm circle was the area between the palm trees, but within the fertilized and managed area. How close to the trees were the measurements made? Was root respiration included? I assume that the fronds have been removed before measuring in the frond-stacked area? When has this happened? Only during the measurements or have they been removed constantly?
l. 143: 0.02 m appears to be a very shallow depth for GHG measurements and usually, a depth of 0.01 m (i.e., 10 cm) is recommended. How high were the bases and why was this depth chosen?
Results
l. 249: each = any of the (?)
Discussion
l. 276: if SOC, microbial and root biomass were explanatory for soil CO2 fluxes, this should be presented in the results already. In fact, the following lines until l. 282 should be moved to the Results section – also, as this supports one of the hypotheses
l. 336: reduced
l. 340: remove “possibly” – the authors provide the explanation in the following sentence
l. 342 – 344: I don´t understand why the this should be a result of decadal over-fertilization – in this study, the authors used higher amounts if fertilizer than used in smallholder oil palm plantations (this is mentioned in ll. 336 – 337). It should thus not be considered a legacy effect of past fertilization management
l. 346: lasting effects on what?
l. 354 – 356: why this comparison? I would think that a plantation cannot be considered a forest
l. 396: please repeat the GWP obtained in this study
Conclusion
l. 429 – 431: I don´t think that this is a legacy effects – the fertilization is still rather high
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-102-RC2
Guantao Chen et al.
Guantao Chen et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
202 | 43 | 15 | 260 | 27 | 7 | 7 |
- HTML: 202
- PDF: 43
- XML: 15
- Total: 260
- Supplement: 27
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1