IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i24p16526-d998801.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Sequestration from Conventional and Organic Olive Tree Nurseries in Tuscany, Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Giulio Lazzerini

    (Department of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Forestry Science and Technology (DAGRI), University of Florence, Viale Delle Idee 30, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy)

  • Jacopo Manzini

    (Department of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Forestry Science and Technology (DAGRI), University of Florence, Viale Delle Idee 30, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy)

  • Stefano Lucchetti

    (Agri Vivai S.r.l, Via Casalina 118/G, 51100 Pistoia, Italy)

  • Stefania Nin

    (Research Centre for Vegetables and Ornamental Crops, Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA), Via dei Fiori 8, 51017 Pescia, Italy)

  • Francesco Paolo Nicese

    (Department of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Forestry Science and Technology (DAGRI), University of Florence, Viale Delle Idee 30, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy)

Abstract

In this study, conventional and organic olive tree nurseries were compared through a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analysis to identify processes that have a greater environmental impact and which of the two systems leads to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Carbon sequestration in the woody biomass of the plants grown with both management systems was also considered. The research was carried out on six olive tree nurseries, four conventional and two managed also with an organic system, located in the nursery district of Pescia (Tuscany, Italy). The functional unit considered was two-year-old pot-grown plants (pot 15 cm Ø) and the results were expressed in terms of kg of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 eq). In all the nurseries analyzed, LCA showed that pots were the highest CO 2 eq emission source (45–63%), followed by potting mix (22.6–32.1%). This was due to the use of plastic in pots and peat for the growing media. Organic management was found to have a definite positive influence on the decrease of GHG, reducing the emissions up to 13% compared with conventional nurseries. Considering carbon stocked in the woody tissues of seedlings, the reduction of emissions attained 15.7% though a slightly lower (−6.7%) amount of CO 2 incorporated into biomass was detected in the olive plants grown in organic nurseries. In light of our results, conversion of the nursery industry from conventional to organic management has the potential to reduce its carbon footprint.

Suggested Citation

  • Giulio Lazzerini & Jacopo Manzini & Stefano Lucchetti & Stefania Nin & Francesco Paolo Nicese, 2022. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Sequestration from Conventional and Organic Olive Tree Nurseries in Tuscany, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16526-:d:998801
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16526/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16526/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nemecek, Thomas & Dubois, David & Huguenin-Elie, Olivier & Gaillard, Gérard, 2011. "Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: I. Integrated and organic farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 217-232, March.
    2. Marco Tregua & Anna D’Auria & Carla Marano-Marcolini, 2018. "Oleotourism: Local Actors for Local Tourism Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-20, May.
    3. Verena Seufert & Navin Ramankutty & Jonathan A. Foley, 2012. "Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture," Nature, Nature, vol. 485(7397), pages 229-232, May.
    4. Casey, J.W. & Holden, N.M., 2006. "Quantification of GHG emissions from sucker-beef production in Ireland," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 90(1-3), pages 79-98, October.
    5. Pelletier, Nathan & Pirog, Rich & Rasmussen, Rebecca, 2010. "Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 380-389, July.
    6. Anna D’Auria & Carla Marano-Marcolini & Ana Čehić & Marco Tregua, 2020. "Oleotourism: A Comparison of Three Mediterranean Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-23, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Junran Liu & Shuyi Liu & Lisha Zhu & Lirong Sun & Ying Zhang & Xin Li & Laili Wang, 2023. "Carbon Neutrality Potential of Textile Products Made from Plant-Derived Fibers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-11, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. González-Quintero, Ricardo & van Wijk, Mark T. & Ruden, Alejandro & Gómez, Manuel & Pantevez, Heiber & Castro-Llanos, Fabio & Notenbaert, An & Arango, Jacobo, 2022. "Yield gap analysis to identify attainable milk and meat productivities and the potential for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in cattle systems of Colombia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    2. Raymond L. Desjardins & Devon E. Worth & Xavier P. C. Vergé & Dominique Maxime & Jim Dyer & Darrel Cerkowniak, 2012. "Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(12), pages 1-23, December.
    3. Lars Biernat & Friedhelm Taube & Ralf Loges & Christof Kluß & Thorsten Reinsch, 2020. "Nitrous Oxide Emissions and Methane Uptake from Organic and Conventionally Managed Arable Crop Rotations on Farms in Northwest Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-19, April.
    4. María I. Nieto & Olivia Barrantes & Liliana Privitello & Ramón Reiné, 2018. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Grazing Systems in Semi-Arid Rangelands of Central Argentina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, November.
    5. Forte, Annachiara & Zucaro, Amalia & De Vico, Gionata & Fierro, Angelo, 2016. "Carbon footprint of heliciculture: A case study from an Italian experimental farm," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 99-111.
    6. Bellassen, Valentin & Drut, Marion & Hilal, Mohamed & Bodini, Antonio & Donati, Michele & de Labarre, Matthieu Duboys & Filipović, Jelena & Gauvrit, Lisa & Gil, José M. & Hoang, Viet & Malak-Rawlikows, 2022. "The economic, environmental and social performance of European certified food," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    7. Bieńkowski, Jerzy & Holka, Małgorzata & Dąbrowicz, Radosław & Jankowiak, Janusz, 2018. "Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle in a Conventional Production System: a Case Study of a Large-Area Farming Enterprise in the Wielkopolska Region," Problems of World Agriculture / Problemy Rolnictwa Światowego, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, vol. 18(33, Part ), September.
    8. Huilong Lin & Yanfei Pu & Xueni Ma & Yue Wang & Charles Nyandwi & Jean de Dieu Nzabonakuze, 2020. "The Environmental Impacts of the Grassland Agricultural System and the Cultivated Land Agricultural System: A Comparative Analysis in Eastern Gansu," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Kearney, M. & O'Riordan, E.G. & McGee, M. & Breen, J. & Crosson, P., 2022. "Farm-level modelling of bioeconomic, greenhouse gas emissions and feed-food performance of pasture-based dairy-beef systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    10. Herron, Jonathan & Curran, Thomas P. & Moloney, Aidan P. & O'Brien, Donal, 2019. "Whole farm modelling the effect of grass silage harvest date and nitrogen fertiliser rate on nitrous oxide emissions from grass-based suckler to beef farming systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 66-78.
    11. Bradley G. Ridoutt & Peerasak Sanguansri & Gregory S. Harper, 2011. "Comparing Carbon and Water Footprints for Beef Cattle Production in Southern Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(12), pages 1-13, December.
    12. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    13. Movedi, Ermes & Valiante, Daniele & Colosio, Alessandro & Corengia, Luca & Cossa, Stefano & Confalonieri, Roberto, 2022. "A new approach for modeling crop-weed interaction targeting management support in operational contexts: A case study on the rice weeds barnyardgrass and red rice," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 463(C).
    14. Wang, Linlin & Li, Qiang & Coulter, Jeffrey A. & Xie, Junhong & Luo, Zhuzhu & Zhang, Renzhi & Deng, Xiping & Li, Linglin, 2020. "Winter wheat yield and water use efficiency response to organic fertilization in northern China: A meta-analysis," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    15. Lucia Mancini, 2013. "Conventional, Organic and Polycultural Farming Practices: Material Intensity of Italian Crops and Foodstuffs," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-23, December.
    16. Daniel P. Roberts & Autar K. Mattoo, 2018. "Sustainable Agriculture—Enhancing Environmental Benefits, Food Nutritional Quality and Building Crop Resilience to Abiotic and Biotic Stresses," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    17. Atanu Mukherjee & Emmanuel C. Omondi & Paul R. Hepperly & Rita Seidel & Wade P. Heller, 2020. "Impacts of Organic and Conventional Management on the Nutritional Level of Vegetables," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-25, October.
    18. Seck, Abdoulaye & Thiam, Djiby Racine, 2022. "Understanding consumer attitudes to and valuation of organic food in Sub-Saharan Africa: A double-bound contingent method applied in Dakar, Senegal," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(1), March.
    19. Behroozeh, Samira & Hayati, Dariush & Karami, Ezatollah, 2022. "Determining and validating criteria to measure energy consumption sustainability in agricultural greenhouses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    20. Schindele, Stephan & Trommsdorff, Maximilian & Schlaak, Albert & Obergfell, Tabea & Bopp, Georg & Reise, Christian & Braun, Christian & Weselek, Axel & Bauerle, Andrea & Högy, Petra & Goetzberger, Ado, 2020. "Implementation of agrophotovoltaics: Techno-economic analysis of the price-performance ratio and its policy implications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16526-:d:998801. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.