Browsing by Author "Nemecek, Thomas"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Addressing crop interactions within cropping systems in LCA(Springer, 2017-09-08) Goglio, Pietro; Brankatschk, Gerhard; Trydeman Knudsen, Marie; Williams, Adrian G.; Nemecek, ThomasPurpose The focus of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of an agricultural plant product is typically on one crop. However, isolating one crop from the cropping system that it belongs to is often challenging because the crops are often interlinked with the other crops in the cropping system. The main objectives of this discussion article are: i) to discuss the characteristics of cropping systems which might affect the LCA methodology, ii) to discuss the advantages and the disadvantages of the current available methods for the life cycle assessment of cropping systems and iii) to offer a framework to carry out LCA of crops and cropping systems. Methods The definition of cropping systems is provided together with a description of two types of LCA: product LCA and system LCA. The LCA issues related to cropping systems characteristics have been classified as 1) crop interrelationship, 2) crop management and emissions, and 3) functional unit issues. The LCA approaches presented are: Cropping System, Allocation approaches, Crop-by-Crop approach, Combined approaches. The various approaches are described together with their advantages and disadvantages, applicability, comprehensiveness and accuracy. Results and discussion The Cropping System approach is best suited for system LCA. For product LCA, none of the methods is fully exhaustive and accurate. The crop sequence approach takes into consideration cropping systems issues if they happen within the year or season and cannot be applied for intercropping and agroforestry systems. The allocation approaches take into consideration cropping system effects by establishing a mathematical relationship between crops present in the cropping systems. The Model for integrative Life Cycle Assessment in Agriculture (MiLA) approach considers cropping systems issues if they are related to multiproduct and nutrient cycling; while the Crop-by-Crop approach is highly affected by assumptions and considers cropping system issues only if they are related to the analysed crop. Conclusions Each LCA approach presents advantages and disadvantages. For system LCA, the Cropping Systems approach is recommended. For product LCA, environmental burdens should be attributed applying the following hierarchy: 1) attributed to the crop if based on a clear causality; 2) attributed with combined approaches and specific criteria; 3) attributed with allocation approaches and generic criteria. These approaches should be combined with the Cropping System approach.Item Open Access A comparison of methods to quantify greenhouse gas emissions of cropping systems in LCA(Elsevier, 2017-03-23) Goglio, Pietro; Smith, Ward N.; Grant, B. B.; Desjardins, R. L.; Gao, X.; Hanis, K.; Tenuta, M.; Campbell, C. A.; McConkey, B. G.; Nemecek, Thomas; Burgess, Paul J.; Williams, Adrian G.Carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are two important greenhouse gases (GHG) released from cropping systems. Their emissions can vary substantially with climate, soil, and crop management. While different methods are available to account for GHG emissions in life cycle assessments (LCA) of crop production, there are no standard procedures. In this study, the objectives were: (i) to compare several methods of estimating CO2 and N2O emissions for a LCA of cropping systems and (ii) to estimate the relative contribution of soil GHG emissions to the overall global warming potential (GWP) using results from a field experiment located in Manitoba, Canada. The methods were: (A) measurements; (B) Tier I and (C) Tier II IPCC (Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change) methodology, (D) a simple carbon model combined with Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Tier II methodology for soil N2O emissions, and (E) the DNDC (DeNitrification DeComposition) agroecosystem model. The estimated GWPs (−7.2–17 Mg CO2eq ha−1 y−1; −80 to 600 kg CO2eq GJ−1 y−1) were similar to previous results in North America and no statistical difference was found between GWP based on methods D and E and GWP based on observations. The five methods gave estimates of soil CO2 emissions that were not statistically different from each other, whereas for N2O emissions only DNDC estimates were similar to observations. Across crop types, all methods gave comparable CO2 and N2O emission estimates for perennial and legume crops, but only DNDC gave similar results with respect to observations for both annual and cereal crops. Whilst the results should be confirmed for other locations, the agroecosystem model and method D can be used, at certainly one selected site, in place of observations for estimating GHGs in agricultural LCA.