Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Nature
  • Article
  • Published:

A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks

Naturevolume 586, pages248–256 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Nitrous oxide (N2O), like carbon dioxide, is a long-lived greenhouse gas that accumulates in the atmosphere. Over the past 150 years, increasing atmospheric N2O concentrations have contributed to stratospheric ozone depletion1 and climate change2, with the current rate of increase estimated at 2 per cent per decade. Existing national inventories do not provide a full picture of N2O emissions, owing to their omission of natural sources and limitations in methodology for attributing anthropogenic sources. Here we present a global N2O inventory that incorporates both natural and anthropogenic sources and accounts for the interaction between nitrogen additions and the biochemical processes that control N2O emissions. We use bottom-up (inventory, statistical extrapolation of flux measurements, process-based land and ocean modelling) and top-down (atmospheric inversion) approaches to provide a comprehensive quantification of global N2O sources and sinks resulting from 21 natural and human sectors between 1980 and 2016. Global N2O emissions were 17.0 (minimum–maximum estimates: 12.2–23.5) teragrams of nitrogen per year (bottom-up) and 16.9 (15.9–17.7) teragrams of nitrogen per year (top-down) between 2007 and 2016. Global human-induced emissions, which are dominated by nitrogen additions to croplands, increased by 30% over the past four decades to 7.3 (4.2–11.4) teragrams of nitrogen per year. This increase was mainly responsible for the growth in the atmospheric burden. Our findings point to growing N2O emissions in emerging economies—particularly Brazil, China and India. Analysis of process-based model estimates reveals an emerging N2O–climate feedback resulting from interactions between nitrogen additions and climate change. The recent growth in N2O emissions exceeds some of the highest projected emission scenarios3,4, underscoring the urgency to mitigate N2O emissions.

This is a preview of subscription content,access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

9,800 Yen / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscription info for Japanese customers

We have a dedicated website for our Japanese customers. Please go tonatureasia.com to subscribe to this journal.

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

￥ 4,980

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Global N2O budget for 2007–2016.
Fig. 2: Regional N2O sources in the decade 2007–2016.
Fig. 3: Ensembles of regional anthropogenic N2O emissions over the period 1980–2016.
Fig. 4: Historical and projected global anthropogenic N2O emissions and concentrations.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The relevant datasets of this study are archived in the box site of the International Center for Climate and Global Change Research at Auburn University (https://auburn.box.com/). Researchers that are interested in using the results made available in the repository are encouraged to contact the original data providers.

Code availability

The relevant codes used in this study are archived in the box site of the International Center for Climate and Global Change Research at Auburn University (https://auburn.box.com/).

References

  1. Prather, M. J. et al. Measuring and modeling the lifetime of nitrous oxide including its variability.J. Geophys. Res. D120, 5693–5705 (2015).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ciais, P. et al. inClimate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 6 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  3. Gidden, M. J. et al. Global emissions pathways under different socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: a dataset of harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the century.Geosci. Model Dev.12, 1443–1475 (2019).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Davidson, E. A. Representative concentration pathways and mitigation scenarios for nitrous oxide.Environ. Res. Lett.7, 024005 (2012).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hall, B., Dutton, G. & Elkins, J. The NOAA nitrous oxide standard scale for atmospheric observations.J. Geophys. Res. D112, D09305 (2007).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Prinn, R. G. et al. History of chemically and radiatively important atmospheric gases from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE).Earth Syst.Sci. Data10, 985–1018 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Butterbach-Bahl, K., Baggs, E. M., Dannenmann, M., Kiese, R. & Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. Nitrous oxide emissions from soils: how well do we understand the processes and their controls?Phil.Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B368, 20130122 (2013).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Tian, H. et al. The terrestrial biosphere as a net source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.Nature531, 225–228 (2016).

    Article ADS CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. United Nations Environment Programme & Suntharalingam, P.Drawing Down N2O to Protect Climate and the Ozone Layer (United Nations Environment Programme, 2013).

  10. Park, S. et al. Trends and seasonal cycles in the isotopic composition of nitrous oxide since 1940.Nat. Geosci.5, 261–265 (2012).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Davidson, E. A. & Kanter, D. Inventories and scenarios of nitrous oxide emissions.Environ. Res. Lett.9, 105012 (2014).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Reay, D. S. et al. Global agriculture and nitrous oxide emissions.Nat. Clim. Change2, 410–416 (2012).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Syakila, A. & Kroeze, C. The global nitrous oxide budget revisited.Greenhouse Gas Meas. Manage.1, 17–26 (2011).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. IPCC 2006.2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (eds Eggleston, H. S. et al.) (IGES, 2006).

  15. Dangal, S. R. et al. Global nitrous oxide emissions from pasturelands and rangelands: magnitude, spatio-temporal patterns and attribution.Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles33, 200–222 (2019).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Tian, H. et al. Global soil nitrous oxide emissions since the preindustrial era estimated by an ensemble of terrestrial biosphere models: magnitude, attribution, and uncertainty.Glob. Change Biol.25, 640–659 (2019).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang, Q. et al. Data-driven estimates of global nitrous oxide emissions from croplands.Natl Sci. Rev.7, 441–452 (2020).

    Article CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Thompson, R. L. et al. Acceleration of global N2O emissions seen from two decades of atmospheric inversion.Nat. Clim. Change9, 993–998 (2019).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Zaehle, S., Ciais, P., Friend, A. D. & Prieur, V. Carbon benefits of anthropogenic reactive nitrogen offset by nitrous oxide emissions.Nat. Geosci.4, 601–605 (2011).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Davidson, E. A. et al. Recuperation of nitrogen cycling in Amazonian forests following agricultural abandonment.Nature447, 995–998 (2007).

    Article ADS CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Verchot, L. V. et al. Land use change and biogeochemical controls of nitrogen oxide emissions from soils in eastern Amazonia.Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles13, 31–46 (1999).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Shcherbak, I., Millar, N. & Robertson, G. P. Global metaanalysis of the nonlinear response of soil nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions to fertilizer nitrogen.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA111, 9199–9204 (2014).

    Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Van Meter, K. J., Basu, N. B., Veenstra, J. J. & Burras, C. L. The nitrogen legacy: emerging evidence of nitrogen accumulation in anthropogenic landscapes.Environ. Res. Lett.11, 035014 (2016).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Firestone, M. K. & Davidson, E. A. Microbiological basis of NO and N2O production and consumption in soil. InExchange of Trace Gases Between Terrestrial Ecosystems and the Atmosphere Vol. 47 (Andreae, M. O. & Schimel, D. S.) 7–21 (Wiley, 1989).

  25. Griffis, T. J. et al. Nitrous oxide emissions are enhanced in a warmer and wetter world.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA114, 12081–12085 (2017).

    Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Pärn, J. et al. Nitrogen-rich organic soils under warm well-drained conditions are global nitrous oxide emission hotspots.Nat. Commun.9, 1135 (2018).

    Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith, K. The potential for feedback effects induced by global warming on emissions of nitrous oxide by soils.Glob. Change Biol.3, 327–338 (1997).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistics (FAO, accessed 7 July 2019);https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/.

  29. Xu, R. et al. Increased nitrogen enrichment and shifted patterns in the world’s grassland: 1860–2016.Earth Syst. Sci. Data11, 175–187 (2019).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. Beusen, A. H., Bouwman, A. F., Van Beek, L. P., Mogollón, J. M. & Middelburg, J. J. Global riverine N and P transport to ocean increased during the 20th century despite increased retention along the aquatic continuum.Biogeosciences13, 2441–2451 (2016).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. MacLeod, M., Hasan, M. R., Robb, D. H. F. & Mamun-Ur-Rashid, M.Quantifying and Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Aquaculture FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture technical paper no. 626 (FAO, 2019).

  32. Buitenhuis, E. T., Suntharalingam, P. & Le Quéré, C. Constraints on global oceanic emissions of N2O from observations and models.Biogeosciences15, 2161–2175 (2018).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Manizza, M., Keeling, R. F. & Nevison, C. D. On the processes controlling the seasonal cycles of the air–sea fluxes of O2 and N2O: a modelling study.Tellus B64, 18429 (2012).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Martinez-Rey, J., Bopp, L., Gehlen, M., Tagliabue, A. & Gruber, N. Projections of oceanic N2O emissions in the 21st century using the IPSL Earth system model.Biogeosciences12, 4133–4148 (2015).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. Maavara, T. et al. Nitrous oxide emissions from inland waters: are IPCC estimates too high?Glob. Change Biol.25, 473–488 (2019).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  36. Yao, Y. et al. Increased global nitrous oxide emissions from streams and rivers in the Anthropocene.Nat. Clim. Change10, 138–142 (2020).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Gerber, P. J. et al.Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. (FAO, 2013).

  38. Herrero, M. et al. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA110, 20888–20893 (2013).

    Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Yuan, J. et al. Rapid growth in greenhouse gas emissions from the adoption of industrial-scale aquaculture.Nat. Clim. Change9, 318–322 (2019).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  40. Froehlich, H. E., Runge, C. A., Gentry, R. R., Gaines, S. D. & Halpern, B. S. Comparative terrestrial feed and land use of an aquaculture-dominant world.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA115, 5295–5300 (2018).

    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Winiwarter, W., Höglund-Isaksson, L., Klimont, Z., Schöpp, W. & Amann, M. Technical opportunities to reduce global anthropogenic emissions of nitrous oxide.Environ. Res. Lett.13, 014011 (2018).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhang, X. et al. Managing nitrogen for sustainable development.Nature528, 51–59 (2015).

    Article ADS CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mueller, N. D. et al. Declining spatial efficiency of global cropland nitrogen allocation.Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles31, 245–257 (2017).

    ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. European Environment Agency.Annual European Union Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2017 and Inventory Report 2019 EEA/PUBL/2019/051 (EEA, 2019).

  45. Cui, Z. et al. Pursuing sustainable productivity with millions of smallholder farmers.Nature555, 363–366 (2018).

    Article ADS CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kanter, D. et al. A post-Kyoto partner: considering the stratospheric ozone regime as a tool to manage nitrous oxide.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA110, 4451–4457 (2013).

    Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Schneider, L., Lazarus, M. & Kollmuss, A.Industrial N2O Projects Under the CDM: Adipic Acid – A Case of Carbon Leakage SEI working paper WP-US-1006 (Stockholm Environment Institute, 2010).

  48. O’Neill, B. C. et al. The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6.Geosci. Model Dev.9, 3461–3482 (2016).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  49. Gütschow, J. et al. The PRIMAP-hist national historical emissions time series.Earth Syst.Sci. Data8, 571–603 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Nevison, C. D., Lueker, T. J. & Weiss, R. F. Quantifying the nitrous oxide source from coastal upwelling.Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles18, GB1018 (2004).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Lauerwald, R. et al. Natural lakes are a minor global source of N2O to the atmosphere.Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles33, 1564–1581 (2019).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Kroeze, C., Mosier, A. & Bouwman, L. Closing the global N2O budget: a retrospective analysis 1500–1994.Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles13, 1–8 (1999).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Schumann, U. & Huntrieser, H. The global lightning-induced nitrogen oxides source.Atmos. Chem. Phys.7, 3823–3907 (2007).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. De Klein, C. et al. N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. In2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Vol. 4, Ch. 11 (IPCC, 2006).

  55. Dentener, F. J. & Crutzen, P. J. A three-dimensional model of the global ammonia cycle.J. Atmos. Chem.19, 331–369 (1994).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Röckmann, T., Kaiser, J., Crowley, J. N., Brenninkmeijer, C. A. & Crutzen, P. J. The origin of the anomalous or “mass-independent” oxygen isotope fractionation in tropospheric N2O.Geophys. Res. Lett.28, 503–506 (2001).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  57. Kaiser, J. & Röckmann, T. Absence of isotope exchange in the reaction of N2O+O(1D) and the global Δ17O budget of nitrous oxide.Geophys. Res. Lett.32, L15808 (2005).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Schlesinger, W. H. An estimate of the global sink for nitrous oxide in soils.Glob. Change Biol.19, 2929–2931 (2013).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  59. Syakila, A., Kroeze, C. & Slomp, C. P. Neglecting sinks for N2O at the Earth’s surface: does it matter?J. Integr. Environ. Sci.7, 79–87 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Bouwman, A. F. et al. Hindcasts and future projections of global inland and coastal nitrogen and phosphorus loads due to finfish aquaculture.Rev. Fish. Sci.21, 112–156 (2013).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Bouwman, A. F. et al. Global hindcasts and future projections of coastal nitrogen and phosphorus loads due to shellfish and seaweed aquaculture.Rev. Fish. Sci.19, 331–357 (2011).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Hu, Z., Lee, J. W., Chandran, K., Kim, S. & Khanal, S. K. Nitrous oxide (N2O) emission from aquaculture: a review.Environ. Sci. Technol.46, 6470–6480 (2012).

    Article ADS CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Williams, J. & Crutzen, P. J. Nitrous oxide from aquaculture.Nat. Geosci.3, 143 (2010).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Andela, N. et al. A human-driven decline in global burned area.Science356, 1356–1362 (2017).

    Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Yang, J. et al. Spatial and temporal patterns of global burned area in response to anthropogenic and environmental factors: reconstructing global fire history for the 20th and early 21st centuries.J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci.119, 249–263 (2014).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  66. Dennis, R.A Review of Fire Projects in Indonesia (1982–1998) (Center for International Forestry Research, 1999).

  67. Suntharalingam, P. et al. Quantifying the impact of anthropogenic nitrogen deposition on oceanic nitrous oxide.Geophys. Res. Lett.39, L07605 (2012).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  68. Murray, R. H., Erler, D. V. & Eyre, B. D. Nitrous oxide fluxes in estuarine environments: response to global change.Glob. Change Biol.21, 3219–3245 (2015).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  69. Erler, D. V. et al. Applying cavity ring-down spectroscopy for the measurement of dissolved nitrous oxide concentrations and bulk nitrogen isotopic composition in aquatic systems: correcting for interferences and field application.Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods13, 391–401 (2015).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Murray, R., Erler, D., Rosentreter, J. & Eyre, B. Seasonal and spatial N2O concentrations and emissions in three tropical estuaries.Mar. Chem.221, 103779 (2020).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Vernberg, F. J. & Vernberg, W. B.The Coastal Zone: Past, Present, and Future (Univ. South Carolina Press, 2001).

  72. Houghton, R. et al. Changes in the carbon content of terrestrial biota and soils between 1860 and 1980: a net release of CO2 to the atmosphere.Ecol. Monogr.53, 235–262 (1983).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Davidson, E. A. The contribution of manure and fertilizer nitrogen to atmospheric nitrous oxide since 1860.Nat. Geosci.2, 659–662 (2009).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. van Lent, J., Hergoualc’h, K. & Verchot, L. V. Soil N2O and NO emissions from land use and land-use change in the tropics and subtropics: a meta-analysis.Biogeosciences12, 7299–7313 (2015).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  75. Keller, M. & Reiners, W. A. Soil–atmosphere exchange of nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, and methane under secondary succession of pasture to forest in the Atlantic lowlands of Costa Rica.Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles8, 399–409 (1994).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Melillo, J. M. et al. Nitrous oxide emissions from forests and pastures of various ages in the Brazilian Amazon.J. Geophys. Res. D106, 34179–34188 (2001).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. McGuire, A. et al. Carbon balance of the terrestrial biosphere in the twentieth century: Analyses of CO2, climate and land use effects with four process-based ecosystem models.Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles15, 183–206 (2001).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Dlugokencky, E., Steele, L., Lang, P. & Masarie, K. The growth rate and distribution of atmospheric methane.J. Geophys. Res. D99, 17021–17043 (1994).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. IPCC 2013. Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables (eds Prather, M. et al.). InClimate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  80. Prather, M. J., Holmes, C. D. & Hsu, J. Reactive greenhouse gas scenarios: systematic exploration of uncertainties and the role of atmospheric chemistry.Geophys. Res. Lett.39, L09803 (2012).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Prather, M. J. & Hsu, J. Coupling of nitrous oxide and methane by global atmospheric chemistry.Science330, 952–954 (2010).

    Article ADS CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Mosier, A. & Kroeze, C. Potential impact on the global atmospheric N2O budget of the increased nitrogen input required to meet future global food demands.Chemosphere2, 465–473 (2000).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Mosier, A. et al. Closing the global N2O budget: nitrous oxide emissions through the agricultural nitrogen cycle.Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst.52, 225–248 (1998).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Houghton, J. T. et al (eds)Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Vols 1–3 (IPCC, 1997).

  85. Nevison, C. Indirect N2O emissions from agriculture. InBackground Papers:IPCC Expert Meetings on Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 381–397 (IPCC, 2000).

  86. 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Vol. 4 (IPCC, 2019).

  87. Crutzen, P. J., Mosier, A. R., Smith, K. A. & Winiwarter, W. N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels.Atmos. Chem. Phys.8, 389–395 (2008).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Smith, K. A., Mosier, A. R., Crutzen, P. J. & Winiwarter, W. The role of N2O derived from crop-based biofuels, and from agriculture in general, in Earth’s climate.Phil.Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B367, 1169–1174 (2012).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Thompson, R. L. et al. Nitrous oxide emissions 1999 to 2009 from a global atmospheric inversion.Atmos. Chem. Phys.14, 1801–1817 (2014).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Wells, K. C. et al. Simulation of atmospheric N2O with GEOS-Chem and its adjoint: evaluation of observational constraints.Geosci. Model Dev.8, 3179–3198 (2015).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Wilson, C., Chipperfield, M., Gloor, M. & Chevallier, F. Development of a variational flux inversion system (INVICAT v1. 0) using the TOMCAT chemical transport model.Geosci. Model Dev.7, 2485–2500 (2014).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  92. Patra, P. K. et al. Improved chemical tracer simulation by MIROC4.0-based atmospheric chemistry-transport model (MIROC4-ACTM).SOLA14, 91–96 (2018).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  93. Tian, H. Q. et al. The global N2O Model Intercomparison Project.Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.99, 1231–1251 (2018).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  94. Suntharalingam, P. et al. Anthropogenic nitrogen inputs and impacts on oceanic N2O fluxes in the northern Indian Ocean: the need for an integrated observation and modelling approach.Deep Sea Res. Part II166, 104–113 (2019).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Battaglia, G. & Joos, F. Marine N2O emissions from nitrification and denitrification constrained by modern observations and projected in multimillennial global warming simulations.Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles32, 92–121 (2018).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Galloway, J. et al. The impact of animal production systems on the nitrogen cycle. InLivestock in a Changing Landscape Vol. 1 (eds Steinfeld, H. et al.) 83–95 (Island Press, 2010).

  97. Elberling, B., Christiansen, H. H. & Hansen, B. U. High nitrous oxide production from thawing permafrost.Nat. Geosci.3, 332–335 (2010).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Wagner-Riddle, C. et al. Globally important nitrous oxide emissions from croplands induced by freeze–thaw cycles.Nat. Geosci.10, 279–283 (2017).

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Suntharalingam, P. et al. Estimates of oceanic nitrous-oxide emissions from global biogeochemistry models. InAmerican Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2018 B21K-2481B (2018).

  100. Janssens-Maenhout, G. et al. EDGAR v4.3.2 Global Atlas of the three major greenhouse gas emissions for the period 1970–2012.Earth Syst. Sci. Data11, 959–1002 (2019).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  101. Tubiello, F. et al.Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Agriculture Ch. 5, 35–115 (FAO, 2015).

  102. van der Werf, G. R. et al. Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016.Earth Syst.Sci. Data9, 697–720 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  103. Dentener, F. Global maps of atmospheric nitrogen deposition, 1860, 1993, and 2050.https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/830 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2006).

  104. Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview.Glob. Environ. Change42, 153–168 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is the result of a collaborative international effort under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project (a project of Future Earth and a research partner of the World Climate Research Programme) and International Nitrogen Initiative. This research was made possible partly by Andrew Carnegie Fellowship award no. G-F-19-56910; NSF grant nos 1903722,1243232 and 1922687; NASA grant nos NNX14AO73G, NNX10AU06G, NNX11AD47G and NNX14AF93G; NOAA grant nos NA16NOS4780207 and NA16NOS4780204; National Key R&D Program of China (grant no. 2017YFA0604702); National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 41961124006); and OUC-AU Joint Center Program. E.T.B., P.R., G.P.P., R.L.T. and P.S. acknowledge funding support from VERIFY project (EC H2020 grant no. 776810); P.S. also acknowledges funding from the EC H2020 grant no. 641816 (CRESCENDO); A.I. acknowledges funding support from JSPS KAKENHI grant (no. 17H01867); G.B., F.J. and S.L. acknowledge support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (no. 200020_172476) and EC H2020 grant no. 821003 (Project 4C) and no. 820989 (Project COMFORT); A.L. acknowledges support from DFG project SFB754/3; S.Z. acknowledges support from EC H2020 grant no. 647204; K.C.W. and D.B.M. acknowledge support from NASA (IDS grant no. NNX17AK18G) and NOAA (grant no. NA13OAR4310086); P.A.R. acknowledges NASA Award NNX17AI74G; M.M. acknowledges support from the Scottish Government’s Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division (RESAS) Environmental Change Programme (2016-2021); B.D.E. acknowledges the support from ARC Linkage Grants LP150100519 and LP190100271; M.J.P. acknowledges the US Department of Energy grant no. DE-SC0012536, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory B628407 and NASA MAP program grant no. NNX13AL12G; S.B. was supported by the EC H2020 with the CRESCENDO project (grant no. 641816) and by the COMFORT project (grant no. 820989), and also acknowledges the support of the team in charge of the CNRM-CM climate model; F.Z. acknowledges the support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41671464). Supercomputing time was provided by the Météo-France/DSI supercomputing center. P.K.P. is partly supported by Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (#2-1802) of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan; R.L. acknowledges support from the French state aid managed by the ANR under the ‘Investissements d’avenir’ programme with the reference ANR-16-CONV-0003. NOAA ground-based observations of atmospheric N2O are supported by NOAA’s Climate Program Office under the Atmospheric Chemistry Carbon Cycle and Climate (AC4) theme. The AGAGE stations measuring N2O are supported by NASA (USA) grants NNX16AC98G to MIT and NNX16AC97G and NNX16AC96G to SIO, and by BEIS (UK) for Mace Head, NOAA (USA) for Barbados, and CSIRO and BoM (Australia) for Cape Grim. F.N.T. acknowledges funding from FAO regular programme. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. P.C. acknowledges support from ERC Synergy Grant Imbalance-P and the ANR Cland Convergence Institute. We also thank S. Frolking for constructive comments and suggestions that have helped to improve this paper. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Center for Climate and Global Change Research, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA

    Hanqin Tian, Rongting Xu, Naiqing Pan, Shufen Pan, Hao Shi & Yuanzhi Yao

  2. Global Carbon Project, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

    Josep G. Canadell

  3. Norsk Institutt for Luftforskning, NILU, Kjeller, Norway

    Rona L. Thompson

  4. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

    Wilfried Winiwarter

  5. Institute of Environmental Engineering, University of Zielona Góra, Zielona Góra, Poland

    Wilfried Winiwarter

  6. School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

    Parvadha Suntharalingam & Erik T. Buitenhuis

  7. Appalachian Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Frostburg, MD, USA

    Eric A. Davidson

  8. Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, LSCE, CEA CNRS, UVSQ UPSACLAY, Gif sur Yvette, France

    Philippe Ciais, Jinfeng Chang, Ronny Lauerwald, Wei Li & Nicolas Vuichard

  9. Department of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Robert B. Jackson

  10. Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Robert B. Jackson

  11. Precourt Institute for Energy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Robert B. Jackson

  12. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy

    Greet Janssens-Maenhout

  13. Ghent University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Ghent, Belgium

    Greet Janssens-Maenhout

  14. Department of Earth System Science, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA

    Michael J. Prather & Daniel J. Ruiz

  15. Department of Geoscience, Environment & Society, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    Pierre Regnier, Goulven G. Laruelle & Ronny Lauerwald

  16. State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

    Naiqing Pan & Bojie Fu

  17. CICERO Center for International Climate Research, Oslo, Norway

    Glen P. Peters

  18. Statistics Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy

    Francesco N. Tubiello

  19. Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany

    Sönke Zaehle

  20. Sino-France Institute of Earth Systems Science, Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Feng Zhou

  21. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research/Atmospheric Environmental Research, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany

    Almut Arneth

  22. Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Gianna Battaglia, Fortunat Joos & Sebastian Lienert

  23. Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques (CNRM), Université de Toulouse, Météo-France, CNRS, Toulouse, France

    Sarah Berthet

  24. LMD-IPSL, Ecole Normale Supérieure / PSL Université, CNRS, Ecole Polytechnique, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

    Laurent Bopp

  25. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Alexander F. Bouwman

  26. Department of Earth Sciences – Geochemistry, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Alexander F. Bouwman

  27. Key Laboratory of Marine Chemistry Theory and Technology, Ministry of Education, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China

    Alexander F. Bouwman & Junjie Wang

  28. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

    Erik T. Buitenhuis

  29. College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Jinfeng Chang

  30. National Centre for Earth Observation, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Martyn P. Chipperfield & Chris Wilson

  31. Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Martyn P. Chipperfield & Chris Wilson

  32. Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, MA, USA

    Shree R. S. Dangal

  33. NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA

    Edward Dlugokencky, James W. Elkins & Bradley Hall

  34. Centre for Coastal Biogeochemistry, School of Environment Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia

    Bradley D. Eyre

  35. Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

    Bojie Fu

  36. Center for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan

    Akihiko Ito

  37. Climate Science Centre, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia

    Paul B. Krummel

  38. GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Kiel, Germany

    Angela Landolfi

  39. Istituto di Scienze Marine, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Rome, Italy

    Angela Landolfi

  40. Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR ECOSYS, Thiverval-Grignon, France

    Ronny Lauerwald

  41. Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

    Wei Li

  42. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT, USA

    Taylor Maavara & Peter A. Raymond

  43. Land Economy, Environment & Society, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), Edinburgh, UK

    Michael MacLeod

  44. Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA

    Dylan B. Millet & Kelley C. Wells

  45. Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Stefan Olin

  46. Research Institute for Global Change, JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan

    Prabir K. Patra

  47. Center for Environmental Remote Sensing, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan

    Prabir K. Patra

  48. Center for Global Change Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Ronald G. Prinn

  49. Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Guido R. van der Werf

  50. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

    Ray F. Weiss

  51. Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA

    Jia Yang

Authors
  1. Hanqin Tian
  2. Rongting Xu
  3. Josep G. Canadell
  4. Rona L. Thompson
  5. Wilfried Winiwarter
  6. Parvadha Suntharalingam
  7. Eric A. Davidson
  8. Philippe Ciais
  9. Robert B. Jackson
  10. Greet Janssens-Maenhout
  11. Michael J. Prather
  12. Pierre Regnier
  13. Naiqing Pan
  14. Shufen Pan
  15. Glen P. Peters
  16. Hao Shi
  17. Francesco N. Tubiello
  18. Sönke Zaehle
  19. Feng Zhou
  20. Almut Arneth
  21. Gianna Battaglia
  22. Sarah Berthet
  23. Laurent Bopp
  24. Alexander F. Bouwman
  25. Erik T. Buitenhuis
  26. Jinfeng Chang
  27. Martyn P. Chipperfield
  28. Shree R. S. Dangal
  29. Edward Dlugokencky
  30. James W. Elkins
  31. Bradley D. Eyre
  32. Bojie Fu
  33. Bradley Hall
  34. Akihiko Ito
  35. Fortunat Joos
  36. Paul B. Krummel
  37. Angela Landolfi
  38. Goulven G. Laruelle
  39. Ronny Lauerwald
  40. Wei Li
  41. Sebastian Lienert
  42. Taylor Maavara
  43. Michael MacLeod
  44. Dylan B. Millet
  45. Stefan Olin
  46. Prabir K. Patra
  47. Ronald G. Prinn
  48. Peter A. Raymond
  49. Daniel J. Ruiz
  50. Guido R. van der Werf
  51. Nicolas Vuichard
  52. Junjie Wang
  53. Ray F. Weiss
  54. Kelley C. Wells
  55. Chris Wilson
  56. Jia Yang
  57. Yuanzhi Yao

Contributions

H.T., R.L.T., J.G.C. and R.B.J. designed and coordinated the study. H.T., R.X., J.G.C., R.L.T., W.W., P.S., E.A.D., P.C., R.B.J., G.J.-M., M.J.P., N.P., S.P., P.R., H.S., F.N.T., S.Z., F.Z., B.F. and G.P.P. conducted data analysis, synthesis and wrote the paper. R.L.T. led atmospheric inversions teaming with M.P.C., D.B.M., P.K.P., K.C.W. and C.W.; H.T. led land biosphere modelling teaming with P.C., H.S., S.Z., A.A., F.J., J.C., S.R.S.D., A.I., W.L., S.L., S.O., N.V., E.A.D. and S.D.; P.S. led ocean biogeochemical modelling teaming with G.B., L.B., S.B., E.T.B., F.J. and A.L.; P.R. led inland water and coastal modelling and synthesis teaming with B.D.E., G.G.L., R.L., T.M., P.A.R., H.T. and Y.Y.; A.F.B., J.W. and M.M. provided data of N2O flux in aquaculture. G.R.v.d.W. and J.Y. provided data of N2O emissions from biomass burning. F.Z. provided cropland N2O flux data from a statistical model and field observations. G.J.M., F.N.T. and W.W. provided N2O inventory data. M.J.P. and D.J.R. provided data of stratospheric and tropospheric sinks. G.P.P. provided RCP and SSP scenarios data and analysis. B.H., E.D. and J.W.E. provided a global N2O monitoring dataset from NOAA/ESRL GMD. R.G.P. and R.F.W. provided a global N2O monitoring dataset from AGAGE stations. P.B.K. provided a global N2O monitoring dataset from CSIRO. All co-authors reviewed and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence toHanqin Tian.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review informationNature thanks Steve Frolking, Arvin Mosier and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Global mean growth rates and atmospheric concentration of N2O.

Global mean growth rates (solid lines, during 1995–2017) and atmospheric N2O concentration (dashed lines, during 1980–2017) are from the AGAGE6 (green), NOAA5 (orange) and CSIRO (blue) networks. Global mean growth rates were calculated with annual time steps and are shown as 12-month moving averages. Growth rates are not calculated before 1995 owing to insufficient data and higher uncertainties on the measurements.

Extended Data Fig. 2 The methodology for data synthesis of the global N2O budget.

BU and TD represent bottom-up and top-down methods, respectively. The colour codes are the same as that used in Table1 and Figs.1–3. We use both approaches, including 22 bottom-up and five top-down estimates of N2O fluxes from land and oceans. For sources estimated by the bottom-up approach, we include six process-based terrestrial biosphere modelling studies16; five process-based ocean biogeochemical models99; one nutrient budget model30,60,61; five inland water modelling studies35,36,50,51,68; one statistical model SRNM based on spatial extrapolation of field measurements17; and four greenhouse-gas inventories: EDGAR v4.3.2100, FAOSTAT101, GAINS41, and GFED4s102. In addition, previous studies regarding estimates of surface sink58,73, lightning53,54, atmospheric production56,57,103, aquaculture31,62 and model-based tropospheric sink81 and observed stratospheric sink1 are included in the current synthesis.aRef.31 and ref.62 provide global aquaculture N2O emissions in 2013 and in 2009, respectively; and the nutrient budget model30,60,61 provides nitrogen flows in global freshwater and marine aquaculture over the period 1980–2016.bModel-based estimates of N2O emissions from inland and coastal waters include rivers and reservoirs35,36, lakes51, estuaries35, coastal zones (that is, seagrasses, mangroves, saltmarsh and intertidal saltmarsh)68 and coastal upwelling50.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Comparison of annual total N2O emissions at global and regional scales estimated by bottom-up and top-down approaches.

The blue lines represent the mean N2O emission from bottom-up methods and the shaded areas show minimum and maximum estimates; the gold lines represent the mean N2O emission from top-down methods and the shaded areas show minimum and maximum estimates.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Global agricultural N2O emissions.

a, Direct emission from agricultural soils associated with mineral fertilizer, manure and crop residue inputs, and cultivation of organic soils based on EDGAR v4.3.2, GAINS, FAOSTAT, NMIP/DLEM and SRNM/DLEM estimates. NMIP/DLEM or SRNM/DLEM indicates the combination of N2O emission estimated by NMIP or SRNM from croplands with N2O emission from intensively managed grassland (pasture) by estimated by DLEM.b, Direct emission from the global total area under permanent meadows and pasture, due to manure nitrogen deposition (left on pasture) based on EDGAR v4.3.2, FAOSTAT and GAINS estimates.c, Emission from manure management based on FAOSTAT, GAINS and EDGAR v4.3.2.d, Aquaculture N2O emission based on a nutrient budget model30, ref.31 and ref.62; the solid line represents the ‘best estimate’ that is the product of emission factor (1.8%) and nitrogen waste from aquaculture provided by the nutrient budget model; the dashed lines represent the minimum and maximum values.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Global N2O emission from other direct anthropogenic sources.

a, Emission from fossil fuel combustion based on EDGAR v4.3.2 and GAINS estimates.b, Emission from industry based on EDGAR v4.3.2 and GAINS estimates.c, Emission from waste and waste water based on EDGAR v4.3.2 and GAINS estimates.d, Emission from biomass burning based on FAOSTAT, DLEM, and GFED4s estimates.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Global N2O emissions from natural soils, inland and coastal waters and due to change in climate, atmospheric CO2 and nitrogen deposition.

a, Changes in global soil N2O fluxes due to changing CO2 and climate.b, Global natural soil N2O emissions without consideration of land use change (for example, deforestation) and without consideration of indirect anthropogenic effects via global change (that is, climate, increased CO2 and atmospheric nitrogen deposition). The estimates are based on NMIP estimates during 1980–2016 including six process-based land biosphere models. Here, we also subtracted the difference between including and not including emissions from secondary forests (that grow back after pasture or cropland abandonment) as part of natural soil emissions based on NMIP estimates. The solid lines represent the ensemble and dashed lines show the minimum and maximum values.c, Global anthropogenic N2O emission from inland waters, estuaries, coastal zones based on models (model-based), FAOSTAT, GAINS and EDGAR v4.3.2 estimates.d, Emission due to atmospheric nitrogen deposition on land based on NMIP, FAOSTAT/EDGAR v4.3.2 and GAINS/EDGAR v4.3.2. FAOSTAT/EDGAR v4.3.2 or GAINS/EDGAR v4.3.2 indicates the combination of agricultural source estimates from FAOSTAT or GAINS with non-agricultural source estimates from EDGAR v4.3.2. A process-based model DLEM36 and a mechanistic stochastic model35,51 were used to estimate N2O emission from inland waters and estuaries, whereas site-level emission rates of N2O were upscaled to estimate global N2O fluxes from the global seagrass area68.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Global N2O dynamics due to land cover changes.

The blue line represents the mean forest N2O reduction caused by the long-term effect of reduced mature forest area (that is, deforestation) and shaded areas show minimum and maximum estimates; the red line represents the mean N2O emission from the post-deforestation pulse effect (that is, crop/pasture N2O emissions from legacy nitrogen of previous forest soil, not accounting for new fertilizer nitrogen added to these crop/pasture lands) and shaded areas show minimum and maximum estimates; the grey line represents the mean net deforestation emission of N2O and shaded areas show minimum and maximum estimates.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Global simulated N2O emission anomaly due to climate effect and global annual land surface temperature anomaly during 1901–2016.

Global N2O emission anomalies are the ensemble of six process-based land biosphere models in NMIP. The temperature data were obtained from the CRU-NCEP v8 climate dataset (https://vesg.ipsl.upmc.fr).a, The correlation between average global annual land surface temperature and simulated N2O emissions (that is, the result of SE6 experiment in NMIP16) considering annual changes in climate but keeping all other factors (that is, nitrogen fertilizer, manure, NDEP, increased CO2 and land cover change) at the level of 1860.b, The correlation between average global annual land surface temperature and simulated N2O emissions (that is, the result of SE1 experiment in NMIP16) considering annual changes in all factors during 1860–2016.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Direct soil emissions and agricultural product trades in Brazil.

a, The red line shows the ensemble direct N2O emissions from livestock manure based on EDGAR v4.3.2, GAINS and FAOSTAT, the sum of ‘manure left on pasture’ and ‘manure management’. The grey columns show the amount of beef exported by Brazil.b, Orange line shows the ensemble direct N2O emissions from croplands due to nitrogen fertilization based on NMIP and SRNM. The grey columns show the amount of soybeans and corn exported by Brazil. Data regarding beef and cereal product exports were adapted from the ABIEC (beef) and FAOSTAT (soybean and corn) databases. Mmt yr−1 represents millions of metric tons per year.

Extended Data Fig. 10 A comparison of anthropogenic N2O emissions and atmospheric N2O concentrations in the unharmonized SSPs.

An extension of Fig.4, in which the emission and concentration data are the same as in Fig.4.a, Global anthropogenic N2O emissions;b, Global N2O concentrations. The unharmonized emissions from the Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs)104 show a large variation due to different input data and model assumptions. Comparison with Fig.4b, d illustrates the modifications to the IAM scenario data for use in CMIP6. All baseline scenarios (SSP 3−7.0 and SSP 5−8.5; without climate policy applied) are shown in grey regardless of the radiative forcing level they reach in 2100.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supporting Text, Supplementary Tables 1–19 and Supplementary Figures 1 and 2.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tian, H., Xu, R., Canadell, J.G.et al. A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks.Nature586, 248–256 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2780-0

Download citation

This article is cited by

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Advertisement

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Microbiology

Sign up for theNature Briefing: Microbiology newsletter — what matters in microbiology research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox.Sign up for Nature Briefing: Microbiology
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2026 Movatter.jp