4.7 Article

Greenhouse gas emissions in coffee grown with differing input levels under conventional and organic management

期刊

AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT
卷 151, 期 -, 页码 6-15

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2012.01.019

关键词

Agroforestry systems; Carbon footprinting; Climate change; Coffee; Nitrous oxide

资金

  1. National Agricultural University of Nicaragua (UNA)
  2. UK Economic & Social Research Council/Natural Environment Research Council
  3. CAFNET
  4. Coalbourn Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coffee plays a key role in sustaining millions of livelihoods around the world. Understanding GHG emissions from coffee supply chains is important in evaluating options for climate change mitigation within the sector. We use data from two long-term coffee agroforestry experiments in Costa Rica and Nicaragua to calculate carbon footprints (CF) for coffee and identify emission hotspots within different management systems, levels of inputs and shade types. Management system and input level were the main cause of variation in CFs. Carbon footprints for 1 kg of fresh coffee cherries were between 0.26 and 0.67 kgCO(2)e for conventional and 0.12 and 0.52 kgCO(2)e for organic management systems. The main contributor to GHG emissions for all management systems was the inputs of organic and inorganic nitrogen. Nitrous oxide emissions from pruning inputs contributed between 7% and 42% of CFs. However, these estimates were strongly influenced by the choice of emission factor used in the calculations. Research is required to develop emission factors that account for different qualities and management of nitrogen inputs to enable effective calculation of the CF from different management strategies, and especially from the pruning and organic inputs managed in agroforestry systems. As such, effective climate change mitigation strategies can only be developed from site-specific studies which utilise accurate accounting and regional-specific emission factors. (c) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据