Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.1 

CHAPTER 11 

N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED 

SOILS, AND CO2 EMISSIONS FROM 

LIME AND UREA APPLICATION 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.2 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

Authors 

Cecile De Klein (New Zealand), Rafael S.A. Novoa (Chile), Stephen Ogle (USA), Keith A. Smith (UK), 

Philippe Rochette (Canada), and Thomas C. Wirth (USA) 

Brian G. McConkey (Canada), Arvin Mosier (USA), and Kristin Rypdal (Norway) 

Contributing Authors

Margaret Walsh (USA) and Stephen A. Williams (USA) 
Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.3 

Contents 

11 N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

11.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................11.5

11.2 N2O Emissions from Managed Soils...................................................................................................11.5

11.2.1 Direct N2O emissions ..................................................................................................................11.6

11.2.1.1 Choice of method...................................................................................................................11.6

11.2.1.2 Choice of emission factors...................................................................................................11.10

11.2.1.3 Choice of activity data .........................................................................................................11.12

11.2.1.4 Uncertainty assessment........................................................................................................11.16

11.2.2 Indirect N2O emissions..............................................................................................................11.19

11.2.2.1 Choice of method.................................................................................................................11.19

11.2.2.2 Choice of emission, volatilisation and leaching factors.......................................................11.23

11.2.2.3 Choice of activity data .........................................................................................................11.23

11.2.2.4 Uncertainty assessment........................................................................................................11.24

11.2.3 Completeness, Time series, QA/QC..........................................................................................11.25

11.3 CO2 Emissions from Liming .............................................................................................................11.26

11.3.1 Choice of method ......................................................................................................................11.27

11.3.2 Choice of emission factors ........................................................................................................11.29

11.3.3 Choice of activity data...............................................................................................................11.29

11.3.4 Uncertainty assessment .............................................................................................................11.29

11.3.5 Completeness, Time series, QA/QC..........................................................................................11.30

11.4 CO2 Emissions from Urea Fertilization.............................................................................................11.32

11.4.1 Choice of method ......................................................................................................................11.32

11.4.2 Choice of emission factor..........................................................................................................11.34

11.4.3 Choice of activity data...............................................................................................................11.34

11.4.4 Uncertainty assessment .............................................................................................................11.34

11.4.5 Completeness, Time series consistency, QA/QC ......................................................................11.35

Annex 11A.1 References for crop residue data in Table 11.2 .........................................................................11.37

References ...................................................................................................................................................11.53
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.4 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

Equations 

Equation 11.1 Direct N2O emissions from managed soils (Tier 1).............................................................11.7

Equation 11.2 Direct N2O emissions from managed soils (Tier 2)...........................................................11.10

Equation 11.3 N from organic N additions applied to soils (Tier 1).........................................................11.12

Equation 11.4 N from animal manure applied to soils (Tier 1) ................................................................11.13

Equation 11.5 N in urine and dung deposited by grazing animals on pasture, 

range and paddock (Tier 1)................................................................................................11.13

Equation 11.6 N from crop residues and forage/pasture renewal (Tier 1) ................................................11.14

Equation 11.7 Dry-weight correction of reported crop yields ..................................................................11.15

Equation 11.7A Alternative approach to estimate FCR (using Table 11.2) ..................................................11.15

Equation 11.8 N mineralised in mineral soils as a result of loss of soil C through change 

in land use or management (Tiers 1 and 2)........................................................................11.16

Equation 11.9 N2O from atmospheric deposition of N volatilised from managed soils (Tier 1) ..............11.21

Equation 11.10 N2O from N leaching/runoff from managed soils in regions where leaching/runoff 

occurs (Tier 1) ...................................................................................................................11.21

Equation 11.11 N2O from atmospheric deposition of N volatilised from managed soils (Tier 2) ..............11.22

Equation 11.12 Annual CO2 emissions from lime application ...................................................................11.27

Equation 11.13 Annual CO2 emissions from urea application....................................................................11.32 

Figures 

Figure 11.1 Schematic diagram illustrating the sources and pathways of N that result 

in direct and indirect N2O emissions from soils and waters. ...............................................11.8

Figure 11.2 Decision tree for direct N2O emissions from managed soils ...............................................11.9

Figure 11.3 Decision tree for indirect N2O emissions from managed soils ..........................................11.20

Figure 11.4 Decision tree for identification of appropriate tier to estimate CO2 emissions 

from liming........................................................................................................................11.28

Figure 11.5 Decision tree for identification of appropriate tier to estimate CO2 emissions 

from urea fertilisation ........................................................................................................11.33 

Tables 

Table 11.1 Default emission factors to estimate direct N2O emissions from managed soils...............11.11

Table 11.2 Default factors for estimation of N added to soils from crop residues ..............................11.17

Table 11.3 Default emission, volatilisation and leaching factors for indirect soil N2O emissions ......11.24
Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.5 

11 N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED SOILS, 

AND CO2 EMISSIONS FROM LIME AND UREA 

APPLICATION 

11.1 INTRODUCTION 

Chapter 11 provides a description of the generic methodologies to be adopted for the inventory of nitrous oxide 

(N2O) emissions from managed soils, including indirect N2O emissions from additions of N to land due to 

deposition and leaching, and emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) following additions of liming materials and 

urea-containing fertiliser. 

Managed soils1

 are all soils on land, including Forest Land, which is managed. For N2O, the basic three-tier 

approach is the same as used in the IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry 

(GPG-LULUCF) for Grassland and Cropland, and in the IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty 

Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (GPG2000) for agricultural soils while relevant parts of 

the GPG-LULUCF methodology have been included for Forest Land. Because the methods are based on pools 

and fluxes that can occur in all the different land-use categories and because in most cases, only national 

aggregate (i.e., non-land use specific) data are available, generic information on the methodologies, as applied at 

the national level is given here, including: 

• a general framework for applying the methods, and appropriate equations for the calculations; 

• an explanation of the processes governing N2O emissions from managed soils (direct and indirect) and CO2

emissions from liming and urea fertilisation, and the associated uncertainties; and 

• choice of methods, emission factors (including default values) and activity data, and volatilisation and 

leaching factors. 

• If activity data are available for specific land-use categories, the equations provided can be implemented for 

specific land-use categories. 

The changes in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, relative to 1996 IPCC Guidelines, include the following: 

• provision of advice on estimating CO2 emissions associated with the use of urea as a fertilizer; 

• full sectoral coverage of indirect N2O emissions; 

• extensive literature review leading to revised emission factors for nitrous oxide from agricultural soils; and 

• removal of biological nitrogen fixation as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of 

significant emissions arising from the fixation process. 

11.2 N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED SOILS 

This section presents the methods and equations for estimating total national anthropogenic emissions of N2O 

(direct and indirect) from managed soils. The generic equations presented here can also be used for estimating 

N2O within specific land-use categories or by condition-specific variables (e.g., N additions to rice paddies) if 

the country can disaggregate the activity data to that level (i.e., N use activity within a specific land use). 

Nitrous oxide is produced naturally in soils through the processes of nitrification and denitrification. Nitrification 

is the aerobic microbial oxidation of ammonium to nitrate, and denitrification is the anaerobic microbial 

reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas (N2). Nitrous oxide is a gaseous intermediate in the reaction sequence of 

denitrification and a by-product of nitrification that leaks from microbial cells into the soil and ultimately into 

the atmosphere. One of the main controlling factors in this reaction is the availability of inorganic N in the soil. 

This methodology, therefore, estimates N2O emissions using human-induced net N additions to soils (e.g., 

synthetic or organic fertilisers, deposited manure, crop residues, sewage sludge), or of mineralisation of N in soil 

organic matter following drainage/management of organic soils, or cultivation/land-use change on mineral soils 

(e.g., Forest Land/Grassland/Settlements converted to Cropland). 

 

1

 Managed land is defined in Chapter 1, Section 1.1. 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.6 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

The emissions of N2O that result from anthropogenic N inputs or N mineralisation occur through both a direct 

pathway (i.e., directly from the soils to which the N is added/released), and through two indirect pathways: (i) 

following volatilisation of NH3 and NOx from managed soils and from fossil fuel combustion and biomass 

burning, and the subsequent redeposition of these gases and their products NH4

+

 and NO3

-

 to soils and waters; 

and (ii) after leaching and runoff of N, mainly as NO3

-

, from managed soils. The principal pathways are 

illustrated in Figure 11.1. 

Direct emissions of N2O from managed soils are estimated separately from indirect emissions, though using a 

common set of activity data. The Tier 1 methodologies do not take into account different land cover, soil type, 

climatic conditions or management practices (other than specified above). Neither do they take account of any 

lag time for direct emissions from crop residues N, and allocate these emissions to the year in which the residues 

are returned to the soil. These factors are not considered for direct or (where appropriate, indirect) emissions 

because limited data are available to provide appropriate emission factors. Countries that have data to show that 

default factors are inappropriate for their country should utilise Tier 2 equations or Tier 3 approaches and include 

a full explanation for the values used. 

11.2.1 Direct N2O emissions 

In most soils, an increase in available N enhances nitrification and denitrification rates which then increase the 

production of N2O. Increases in available N can occur through human-induced N additions or change of land-use 

and/or management practices that mineralise soil organic N. 

The following N sources are included in the methodology for estimating direct N2O emissions from managed 

soils: 

• synthetic N fertilisers (FSN); 

• organic N applied as fertiliser (e.g., animal manure, compost, sewage sludge, rendering waste) (FON); 

• urine and dung N deposited on pasture, range and paddock by grazing animals (FPRP); 

• N in crop residues (above-ground and below-ground), including from N-fixing crops 2

 and from forages 

during pasture renewal 3

 (FCR); 

• N mineralisation associated with loss of soil organic matter resulting from change of land use or 

management of mineral soils (FSOM); and 

• drainage/management of organic soils (i.e., Histosols) 4

 (FOS). 

11.2.1.1 CHOICE OF METHOD

The decision tree in Figure 11.2 provides guidance on which tier method to use.

Tier 1 

In its most basic form, direct N2O emissions from managed soils are estimated using Equation 11.1 as follows: 

 

2

 Biological nitrogen fixation has been removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of significant 

emissions arising from the fixation process itself (Rochette and Janzen, 2005). These authors concluded that the N2O 

emissions induced by the growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a function of the above-ground and 

below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue (the nitrogen residue from forages is only accounted for during 

pasture renewal). Conversely, the release of N by mineralisation of soil organic matter as a result of change of land use or 

management is now included as an additional source. These are significant adjustments to the methodology previously 

described in the 1996 IPCC Guidelines. 

3

 The nitrogen residue from perennial forage crops is only accounted for during periodic pasture renewal, i.e. not necessarily 

on an annual basis as is the case with annual crops. 

4 Soils are organic if they satisfy the requirements 1 and 2, or 1 and 3 below (FAO, 1998): 1. Thickness of 10 cm or more. A 

horizon less than 20 cm thick must have 12 percent or more organic carbon when mixed to a depth of 20 cm; 2. If the soil 

is never saturated with water for more than a few days, and contains more than 20 percent (by weight) organic carbon 

(about 35 percent organic matter); 3. If the soil is subject to water saturation episodes and has either: (i) at least 12 percent 

(by weight) organic carbon (about 20 percent organic matter) if it has no clay; or (ii) at least 18 percent (by weight) organic

carbon (about 30 percent organic matter) if it has 60 percent or more clay; or (iii) an intermediate, proportional amount of 

organic carbon for intermediate amounts of clay (FAO, 1998). 
Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.7 

EQUATION 11.1 

DIRECT N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED SOILS (TIER 1) 

N2ODirect−N = N2O−NN inputs + N2O−NOS + N2O−NPRP

Where: 

[( ) ]

[ ] ( ) ⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡

+ + + •

+ + + • + − = SN ON CR SOM FR FR

SN ON CR SOM

N inputs F F F F EF

F F F F EF

N O N

1

1

2

( ) ( )

( )( )

( ) ⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

•

• + • +

• + • +

− =

OS F Trop F Trop

OS F Temp NR F Temp NR OS F Temp NP F Temp NP

OS CG Temp CG Temp OS CG Trop CG Trop

OS

F EF

F EF F EF

F EF F EF

N O N

, , 2 ,

, , , 2 , , , , , 2 , ,

, , 2 , , , 2 ,

2

[( ) ( )] N2O−NPRP = FPRP,CPP • EF3PRP,CPP + FPRP,SO • EF3PRP,SO

Where: 

N2ODirect –N = annual direct N2O–N emissions produced from managed soils, kg N2O–N yr-1

N2O–NN inputs = annual direct N2O–N emissions from N inputs to managed soils, kg N2O–N yr-1 

N2O–NOS = annual direct N2O–N emissions from managed organic soils, kg N2O–N yr-1

N2O–NPRP = annual direct N2O–N emissions from urine and dung inputs to grazed soils, kg N2O–N yr-1

FSN = annual amount of synthetic fertiliser N applied to soils, kg N yr-1

FON = annual amount of animal manure, compost, sewage sludge and other organic N additions applied to 

soils (Note: If including sewage sludge, cross-check with Waste Sector to ensure there is no double 

counting of N2O emissions from the N in sewage sludge), kg N yr-1 

FCR = annual amount of N in crop residues (above-ground and below-ground), including N-fixing crops, 

and from forage/pasture renewal, returned to soils, kg N yr-1

FSOM = annual amount of N in mineral soils that is mineralised, in association with loss of soil C from soil 

organic matter as a result of changes to land use or management, kg N yr-1

FOS = annual area of managed/drained organic soils, ha (Note: the subscripts CG, F, Temp, Trop, NR and 

NP refer to Cropland and Grassland, Forest Land, Temperate, Tropical, Nutrient Rich, and Nutrient 

Poor, respectively) 

FPRP = annual amount of urine and dung N deposited by grazing animals on pasture, range and paddock, 

kg N yr-1 (Note: the subscripts CPP and SO refer to Cattle, Poultry and Pigs, and Sheep and Other 

animals, respectively) 

EF1 = emission factor for N2O emissions from N inputs, kg N2O–N (kg N input)-1(Table 11.1) 

EF1FR is the emission factor for N2O emissions from N inputs to flooded rice, kg N2O–N (kg N input)-1 

(Table 11.1) 5

EF2 = emission factor for N2O emissions from drained/managed organic soils, kg N2O–N ha-1 yr-1; (Table 

11.1) (Note: the subscripts CG, F, Temp, Trop, NR and NP refer to Cropland and Grassland, Forest 

Land, Temperate, Tropical, Nutrient Rich, and Nutrient Poor, respectively) 

EF3PRP = emission factor for N2O emissions from urine and dung N deposited on pasture, range and 

paddock by grazing animals, kg N2O–N (kg N input)-1; (Table 11.1) (Note: the subscripts CPP and 

SO refer to Cattle, Poultry and Pigs, and Sheep and Other animals, respectively) 

 

5

 When the total annual quantity of N applied to flooded paddy rice is known, this N input may be multiplied by a lower 

default emission factor applicable to this crop, EF1FR (Table 11.1) (Akiyama et al., 2005) or, where a country-specific 

emission factor has been determined, by that factor instead. Although there is some evidence that intermittent flooding (as 

described in Chapter 5.5) can increase N2O emissions, current scientific data indicate that EF1FR also applies to intermittent 

flooding situations. 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.8 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

Figure 11.1 Schematic diagram illustrating the sources and pathways of N that result in 

direct and indirect N2O emissions from soils and waters 

Note: Sources of N applied to, or deposited on, soils are represented with arrows on the left-hand side of the 

graphic. Emission pathways are also shown with arrows including the various pathways of volatilisation of NH3

and NOx from agricultural and non-agricultural sources, deposition of these gases and their products NH4

+

 and 

NO3

-

, and consequent indirect emissions of N2O are also illustrated. “Applied Organic N Fertilisers” include 

animal manure, all compost, sewage sludge, tankage, etc. “Crop Residues” include above- and below-ground 

residues for all crops (non-N and N fixing) and from perennial forage crops and pastures following renewal. On 

the lower right-hand side is a cut-away view of a representative sections of managed land; Histosol cultivation is 

represented here. 
Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.9 

Figure 11.2 Decision tree for direct N2O emissions from managed soils 

Start

Do you

have rigorously

documented country-specific

emission factors

for EF1, EF2, and/or

EF3PRP?

Obtain 

country-specific

data.

Estimate emissions using the Tier 1

default emission factor value and

country-specific activity data.

No

Note:

1: N sources include: synthetic N fertiliser, organic N additions, urine and dung deposited during grazing, crop/forage residue, 

mineralisation of N contained in soil organic matter that accompanies C loss from soils following a change in land use or management and 

drainage/management of organic soils. Other organic N additions (e.g., compost, sewage sludge, rendering waste) can be included in this 

calculation if sufficient information is available. The waste input is measured in units of N and added as an additional source sub-term 

under FON in Equation 11.1 to be multiplied by EF1.

2: See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting Section 4.1.2 on limited resources), for 

discussion of key categories and use of decision trees.

3: As a rule of thumb, a sub-category would be significant if it accounts for 25-30% of emissions from the source category.

Is this

a key category2

 and

is this N source

significant3

?

No

Yes

Estimate emissions using Tier 2

equation and available countryspecific emission factors, 

or Tier 3 methods.

Yes

Yes

Box 2: Tier 1

Box 1: Tier 1

No

Estimate emissions using Tier 1

equations, default emission factors,

FAO activity data for mineral N

fertiliser use and livestock 

populations, and expert opinion 

on other activity data.

For

each N source ask:

Do you have country-specific

activity data1

?

Box 3: Tier 2 or 3
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.10 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

Conversion of N2O–N emissions to N2O emissions for reporting purposes is performed by using the following 

equation: 

N2O = N2O–N ● 44/28 

Tier 2 

If more detailed emission factors and corresponding activity data are available to a country than are presented in 

Equation 11.1, further disaggregation of the terms in the equation can be undertaken. For example, if emission 

factors and activity data are available for the application of synthetic fertilisers and organic N (FSN and FON) 

under different conditions i, Equation 11.1 would be expanded to become 6: 

EQUATION 11.2 

DIRECT N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED SOILS (TIER 2) 

− = ∑( ) + • + ( + )• + − + − iN2ODirect N FSN FON i EF1i FCR FSOM EF1 N2O NOS N2O NPRP

Where: 

EF1i = emission factors developed for N2O emissions from synthetic fertiliser and organic N application 

under conditions i (kg N2O–N (kg N input)-1); i = 1, ...n. 

Equation 11.2 may be modified in a variety of ways to accommodate any combination of N source-, crop type-, 

management-, land use-, climate-, soil- or other condition-specific emission factors that a country may be able to 

obtain for each of the individual N input variables (FSN, FON, FCR, FSOM, FOS, FPRP). 

Conversion of N2O–N emissions to N2O emissions for reporting purposes is performed by using the following 

equation: 

N2O = N2O–N ● 44/28 

Tier 3 

Tier 3 methods are modelling or measurement approaches. Models are useful because in appropriate forms they 

can relate the soil and environmental variables responsible for N2O emissions to the size of those emissions. 

These relationships may then be used to predict emissions from whole countries or regions for which 

experimental measurements are impracticable. Models should only be used after validation by representative 

experimental measurements. Care should also be taken to ensure that the emission estimates developed through 

the use of models or measurements account for all anthropogenic N2O emissions.7

 Guidance that provides a 

sound scientific basis for the development of a Tier 3 Model-based Accounting System is given in Chapter 2, 

Section 2.5. 

11.2.1.2 CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS

Tiers 1 and 2 

Three emission factors (EF) are needed to estimate direct N2O emissions from managed soils. The default values 

presented here may be used in the Tier 1 equation or in the Tier 2 equation in combination with country-specific 

emission factors. The first EF (EF1) refers to the amount of N2O emitted from the various synthetic and organic 

N applications to soils, including crop residue and mineralisation of soil organic carbon in mineral soils due to 

land-use change or management. The second EF (EF2) refers to the amount of N2O emitted from an area of 

drained/managed organic soils, and the third EF (EF3PRP) estimates the amount of N2O emitted from urine and 

dung N deposited by grazing animals on pasture, range and paddock. Default emission factors for the Tier 1 

method are summarised in Table 11.1. 

 

6

 It is important to note that Equation 11.2 is just one of many possible modifications to Equation 11.1 when using the Tier 2 

method. The eventual form of Equation 11.2 will depend upon the availability of condition-specific emission factors and 

the ability to which a country can disaggregate its activity data. 

7

 Natural N2O emissions on managed land are assumed to be equal to emissions on unmanaged land. These latter emissions 

are very low. Therefore, nearly all emissions on managed land are considered anthropogenic. Estimates using the IPCC 

methodology are of the same magnitude as total measured emissions from managed land. The so-called 'background' 

emissions estimated by Bouwman (1996) (i.e., approx. 1 kg N2O–N/ha/yr under zero fertiliser N addition) are not “natural” 

emissions but are mostly due to contributions of N from crop residue. These emissions are anthropogenic and accounted 

for in the IPCC methodology. 
Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.11 

In the light of new evidence, the default value for EF1 has been set at 1% of the N applied to soils or released 

through activities that result in mineralisation of organic matter in mineral soils 8

. In many cases, this factor will 

be adequate, however, there are recent data to suggest that this emission factor could be disaggregated based on 

(1) environmental factors (climate, soil organic C content, soil texture, drainage and soil pH); and (2) 

management-related factors (N application rate per fertiliser type, type of crop, with differences between 

legumes, non-leguminous arable crops, and grass) (Bouwman et al., 2002; Stehfest and Bouwman, 2006). 

Countries that are able to disaggregate their activity data from all or some of these factors may choose to use 

disaggregated emission factors with the Tier 2 approach. 

TABLE 11.1 

DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS TO ESTIMATE DIRECT N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED SOILS

Emission factor Default value Uncertainty range 

EF1 for N additions from mineral fertilisers, organic 

amendments and crop residues, and N mineralised from 

mineral soil as a result of loss of soil carbon [kg N2O–N (kg 

N)-1] 

0.01 0.003 - 0.03 

EF1FR for flooded rice fields [kg N2O–N (kg N)-1] 0.003 0.000 - 0.006 

EF2 CG, Temp for temperate organic crop and grassland soils (kg 

N2O–N ha-1) 8 2 - 24 

EF2 CG, Trop for tropical organic crop and grassland soils (kg 

N2O–N ha-1) 16 5 - 48 

EF2F, Temp, Org, R for temperate and boreal organic nutrient rich 

forest soils (kg N2O–N ha-1) 0.6 0.16 - 2.4 

EF2F, Temp, Org, P for temperate and boreal organic nutrient poor 

forest soils (kg N2O–N ha-1) 0.1 0.02 - 0.3 

EF2F, Trop for tropical organic forest soils (kg N2O–N ha-1) 8 0 - 24 

EF3PRP, CPP for cattle (dairy, non-dairy and buffalo), poultry 

and pigs [kg N2O–N (kg N)-1] 0.02 0.007 - 0.06 

EF3PRP, SO for sheep and ‘other animals’ [kg N2O–N (kg N)-1] 0.01 0.003 - 0.03 

Sources: 

EF1: Bouwman et al. 2002a,b; Stehfest & Bouwman, 2006; Novoa & Tejeda, 2006 in press; EF1FR: Akiyama et al., 2005; EF2CG, Temp, 

EF2CG, Trop, EF2F,Trop: Klemedtsson et al., 1999, IPCC Good Practice Guidance, 2000; EF2F, Temp: Alm et al., 1999; Laine et al., 1996; 

Martikainen et al., 1995; Minkkinen et al., 2002: Regina et al., 1996; Klemedtsson et al., 2002; EF3, CPP, EF3, SO: de Klein, 2004. 

The default value for EF2 is 8 kg N2O–N ha-1 yr-1 for temperate climates. Because mineralisation rates are 

assumed to be about 2 times greater in tropical climates than in temperate climates, the emission factor EF2 is 16 

kg N2O–N ha-1 yr-1 for tropical climates 9

. Climate definitions are given in Chapter 3, Annex 3A.5. 

The default value for EF3PRP is 2% of the N deposited by all animal types except ‘sheep’ and ‘other’ animals. For 

these latter species, a default emission factor of 1% of the N deposited may be used 10. 

 

8

 The value of EF1 has been changed from 1.25% to 1%, as compared to the 1996 IPCC Guidelines, as a result of new 

analyses of the available experimental data (Bouwman et al., 2002a,b; Stehfest and Bouwman, 2006; Novoa and Tejeda, 

2006 in press). These analyses draw on a much larger number of measurements than were available for the earlier study 

that gave rise to the previous value used for EF1 (Bouwman, 1996). The mean value for fertiliser- and manure-induced 

emissions calculated in these reviews is close to 0.9%; however, it is considered that, given the uncertainties associated 

with this value and the inclusion in the inventory calculation of other contributions to the nitrogen additions (e.g., from 

crop residues and the mineralisation of soil organic matter), the round value of 1% is appropriate. 

9

 The values of EF2, for both temperate and tropical climates, have been changed from the values provided in the 1996 IPCC 

Guidelines to those contained in the GPG2000. 

10 The addition of a default emission factor for sheep is a change from the 1996 IPCC Guidelines. The default emission factor 

value for EF3PRP has been disaggregated for different animal types based on a recent review on N2O emissions from urine 

and dung depositions (de Klein, 2004). This review indicated that the emission factor for sheep is lower than that for cattle 

and that a value of 1% of the nitrogen deposited is more appropriate. Reasons for the lower EF3PRP for sheep include more 

even urine distribution (smaller and more frequent urinations), and smaller effects on soil compaction during grazing. 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.12 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

11.2.1.3 CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

Tiers 1 and 2 

This section describes generic methods for estimating the amount of various N inputs to soils (FSN, FON, FPRP, 

FCR, FSOM, FOS) that are needed for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 methodologies (Equations 11.1 and 11.2). 

Applied synthetic fertiliser (FSN) 

The term FSN refers to the annual amount of synthetic N fertiliser applied to soils 11. It is estimated from the total 

amount of synthetic fertiliser consumed annually. Annual fertiliser consumption data may be collected from 

official country statistics, often recorded as fertiliser sales and/or as domestic production and imports. If countryspecific data are not available, data from the International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFIA) 

(http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/statistics.asp) on total fertiliser use by type and by crop, or from the Food and 

Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO): (http://faostat.fao.org/) on synthetic fertiliser 

consumption, can be used. It may be useful to compare national statistics to international databases such as those 

of the IFIA and FAO. If sufficient data are available, fertiliser use may be disaggregated by fertiliser type, crop 

type and climatic regime for major crops. These data may be useful in developing revised emission estimates if 

inventory methods are improved in the future. It should be noted that most data sources (including FAO) might 

limit reporting to agricultural N uses, although applications may also occur on Forest Land, Settlements, or other 

lands. This unaccounted N is likely to account for a small proportion of the overall emissions. However, it is 

recommended that countries seek out this additional information whenever possible. 

Applied organic N fertilisers (FON) 

The term “applied organic N fertiliser” (FON) refers to the amount of organic N inputs applied to soils other than 

by grazing animals and is calculated using Equation 11.3. This includes applied animal manure, sewage sludge 

applied to soil, compost applied to soils, as well as other organic amendments of regional importance to 

agriculture (e.g., rendering waste, guano, brewery waste, etc.). Organic N fertiliser (FON) is calculated using 

Equation 11.3: 

EQUATION 11.3 

N FROM ORGANIC N ADDITIONS APPLIED TO SOILS (TIER 1) 

FON = FAM + FSEW + FCOMP + FOOA

Where: 

FON = total annual amount of organic N fertiliser applied to soils other than by grazing animals, kg N yr-1

FAM = annual amount of animal manure N applied to soils, kg N yr-1

FSEW = annual amount of total sewage N (coordinate with Waste Sector to ensure that sewage N is not 

double-counted) that is applied to soils, kg N yr-1

FCOMP = annual amount of total compost N applied to soils (ensure that manure N in compost is not 

double-counted), kg N yr-1

 

There are no or very limited data for N2O emission factors of other animal types, and the emission factor for poultry and 

swine remains at 2% of nitrogen deposited. However, a value of 1% of the nitrogen deposited may be used for animals 

classified as ‘other animals’ which includes goats, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, reindeer, and camelids, as these are 

likely to have nitrogen excretion rates and patterns that are more similar to sheep than to cattle. The review further 

suggested that a disaggregation of EF3PRP for dung vs. urine nitrogen could also be considered. However, this is difficult to 

implement as it is unlikely that countries have the required information readily available to assess excretion rates in urine 

and dung. However, this approach may be considered by countries that use a higher tier methodology. Finally, the review 

revealed that current information is insufficient or inconclusive to allow for disaggregation of EF3PRP based on climate 

region, soil type or drainage class, and/or grazing intensity. 

11 For the Tier 1 approach, the amounts of applied mineral nitrogen fertilisers (FSN) and of applied organic nitrogen fertilisers 

(FON) are no longer adjusted for the amounts of NH3 and NOx volatilisation after application to soil. This is a change from 

the methodology described in the 1996 IPCC Guidelines. The reason for this change is that field studies that have 

determined N2O emission factors for applied N were not adjusted for volatilisation when they were estimated. In other 

words, these emission factors were determined from: fertiliser-induced N2O–N emitted / total amount of N applied, and not 

from: fertiliser-induced N2O–N emitted / (total amount of N applied – NH3 and NOx volatilised). As a result, adjusting the 

amount of N input for volatilisation before multiplying it with the emission factor would in fact underestimate total N2O 

emissions. Countries using Tier 2 or Tier 3 approaches should be aware that correction for NH3/NOx volatilisation after 

mineral or organic N application to soil may be required depending on the emission factor and/or the inventory 

methodology used. 
Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.13 

FOOA = annual amount of other organic amendments used as fertiliser (e.g., rendering waste, guano, 

brewery waste, etc.), kg N yr-1

The term FAM is determined by adjusting the amount of manure N available (NMMS_Avb; see Equation 10.34 in 

Chapter 10) for the amount of managed manure used for feed (FracFEED), burned for fuel (FracFUEL), or used for 

construction (FracCNST) as shown in Equation 11.4. Data for FracFUEL, FracFEED, FracCNST can be obtained from 

official statistics or a survey of experts. However, if these data are not available use NMMS_Avb as FAM without 

adjusting for FracFUEL, FracFEED, FracCNST. 

EQUATION 11.4 

N FROM ANIMAL MANURE APPLIED TO SOILS (TIER 1) 

[ ( )] FAM NMMS Avb − FracFEED + FracFUEL + FracCNST = • 1

Where: 

FAM = annual amount of animal manure N applied to soils, kg N yr-1

NMMS_Avb = amount of managed manure N available for soil application, feed, fuel or construction, kg N 

yr-1 (see Equation 10.34 in Chapter 10) 

FracFEED = fraction of managed manure used for feed 

FracFUEL = fraction of managed manure used for fuel 

FracCNST = fraction of managed manure used for construction 

Urine and dung from grazing animals (FPRP) 

The term FPRP refers to the annual amount of N deposited on pasture, range and paddock soils by grazing animals. 

It is important to note that the N from managed animal manure applied to soils is included in the FAM term of FON. 

The term FPRP is estimated using Equation 11.5 from the number of animals in each livestock species/category T

(N(T)), the annual average amount of N excreted by each livestock species/category T (Nex(T)), and the fraction of 

this N deposited on pasture, range and paddock soils by each livestock species/category T (MS(T,PRP)). The data 

needed for this equation can be obtained from the livestock chapter (see Chapter 10, Section 10.5). 

Equation 11.5 provides an estimate of the amount of N deposited by grazing animals: 

EQUATION 11.5 

N IN URINE AND DUNG DEPOSITED BY GRAZING ANIMALS ON PASTURE, RANGE AND PADDOCK 

(TIER 1) 

= ∑[( • )• ]

T

FPRP N(T ) Nex(T ) MS(T ,PRP)

Where: 

FPRP = annual amount of urine and dung N deposited on pasture, range, paddock and by grazing animals, 

kg N yr-1

N(T) = number of head of livestock species/category T in the country (see Chapter 10, Section 10.2) 

Nex(T) = annual average N excretion per head of species/category T in the country, kg N animal-1 yr-1 (see 

Chapter 10, Section 10.5) 

MS(T,PRP) = fraction of total annual N excretion for each livestock species/category T that is deposited on 

pasture, range and paddock12 (see Chapter 10, Section 10.5) 

Crop residue N, including N-fixing crops and forage/ pasture renewal, returned to soils, (FCR) 

The term FCR refers to the amount of N in crop residues (above-ground and below-ground), including N-fixing 

crops, returned to soils annually 13. It also includes the N from N-fixing and non-N-fixing forages mineralised 

 

12 In the livestock section, pasture, range and paddock is referred to as one of the manure management systems denoted as 

“S”. 

13 The equation to estimate FCR has been modified from the previous 1996 IPCC Guidelines to account for the contribution of 

the below-ground nitrogen to the total input of nitrogen from crop residues, which previously was ignored in the estimate 

of FCR. As a result, FCR now represents a more accurate estimate of the amount of nitrogen input from crop residue, which 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.14 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

during forage or pasture renewal 14. It is estimated from crop yield statistics and default factors for above-/belowground residue:yield ratios and residue N contents. In addition, the method accounts for the effect of residue 

burning or other removal of residues (direct emissions of N2O from residue burning are addressed under Chapter 

2, Section 2.4. Because different crop types vary in residue:yield ratios, renewal time and N contents, separate 

calculations should be performed for major crop types and then N values from all crop types are summed up. At 

a minimum, it is recommended that crops be segregated into: 1) non-N-fixing grain crops (e.g., maize, rice, 

wheat, barley); 2) N-fixing grains and pulses (e.g., soybean, dry beans, chickpea, lentils); 3) root and tuber crops 

(e.g., potato, sweet potato, cassava); 4) N-fixing forage crops (alfalfa, clover); and 5) other forages including 

perennial grasses and grass/clover pastures. Equation 11.6 provides the equation to estimate N from crop 

residues and forage/pasture renewal, for a Tier 1 approach. 

EQUATION 11.6 

N FROM CROP RESIDUES AND FORAGE/PASTURE RENEWAL (TIER 1) 

    















        

  

T T T f AG T AG T Remove T T BG T BG T

T Renew T

CR Area Area burnt C R N Frac Area R N

Crop Frac

F

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

( ) ( )

1

Where: 

FCR = annual amount of N in crop residues (above and below ground), including N-fixing crops, and from 

forage/pasture renewal, returned to soils annually, kg N yr-1

Crop(T) = harvested annual dry matter yield for crop T, kg d.m. ha-1

Area(T) = total annual area harvested of crop T, ha yr-1

Area burnt (T) = annual area of crop T burnt, ha yr-1

Cf = combustion factor (dimensionless) (refer to Chapter 2, Table 2.6) 

FracRenew (T) = fraction of total area under crop T that is renewed annually 15. For countries where pastures 

are renewed on average every X years, FracRenew = 1/X. For annual crops FracRenew = 1 

RAG(T) = ratio of above-ground residues dry matter (AGDM(T)) to harvested yield for crop T (Crop(T)), kg 

d.m. (kg d.m.)-1, 

= AGDM(T) ● 1000 / Crop(T) (calculating AGDM(T) from the information in Table 11.2) 

NAG(T) = N content of above-ground residues for crop T, kg N (kg d.m.) -1, (Table 11.2) 

FracRemove(T) = fraction of above-ground residues of crop T removed annually for purposes such as feed, 

bedding and construction, kg N (kg crop-N)-1. Survey of experts in country is required to obtain data. 

If data for FracRemove are not available, assume no removal. 

RBG(T) = ratio of below-ground residues to harvested yield for crop T, kg d.m. (kg d.m.)-1. If alternative 

data are not available, RBG(T) may be calculated by multiplying RBG-BIO in Table 11.2 by the ratio of 

total above-ground biomass to crop yield ( = [(AGDM(T) ● 1000 + Crop(T)) / Crop(T)],(also calculating 

AGDM(T) from the information in Table 11.2).

NBG(T) = N content of below-ground residues for crop T, kg N (kg d.m.)-1, (Table 11.2) 

T = crop or forage type 

Data on crop yield statistics (yields and area harvested, by crop) may be obtained from national sources. If such 

data are not available, FAO publishes data on crop production: (http://faostat.fao.org/). 

Since yield statistics for many crops are reported as field-dry or fresh weight, a correction factor can be applied 

to estimate dry matter yields (Crop(T)) where appropriate (Equation 11.7). The proper correction to be used is 

dependent on the standards used in yield reporting, which may vary between countries. Alternatively, the default 

values for dry matter content given in Table 11.2 may be used. 

 

14 The inclusion of nitrogen from forage or pasture renewal is a change from previous 1996 IPCC Guidelines. 

15 This term is included in the equation to account for N release and the subsequent increases in N2O emissions (e.g., van der 

Weerden et al., 1999; Davies et al., 2001), from renewal/cultivation of grazed grass or grass/clover pasture and other 

forage crops. 
Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.15 

EQUATION 11.7 

DRY-WEIGHT CORRECTION OF REPORTED CROP YIELDS

Crop(T )  Yield Fresh(T )  DRY

Where: 

Crop(T) = harvested dry matter yield for crop T, kg d.m. ha-1

Yield_Fresh(T) = harvested fresh yield for crop T, kg fresh weight ha-1

DRY = dry matter fraction of harvested crop T, kg d.m. (kg fresh weight)-1

The regression equations in Table 11.2 may also be used to calculate the total above-ground residue dry matter, 

and the other data in the table then permit the calculation in turn of the N in the above-ground residues, the 

below-ground dry matter, and the total N in the below-ground residues. The total N addition, FCR, is the sum of 

the above-and below-ground N contents. With this approach, FCR is given by Equation 11.7A: 

EQUATION 11.7A 

ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO ESTIMATE FCR (USING TABLE 11.2) 

    















            

 

T T T DM T AG T RemoveT T DM T T BGBIOT BG T

RenewT

CR Area Areaburnt CF AG N Frac Area AG Crop R N

Frac

F

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

( )

1000 1 ( 1000 )

An improvement on this approach for determining FCR (i.e., Tier 2) would be the use of country-specific data 

rather than the values provided in Table 11.2, as well as country-specific values for the fraction of above-ground 

residue burned. 

Mineralised N resulting from loss of soil organic C stocks in mineral soils through land-use change or 

management practices (FSOM) 16

The term FSOM refers to the amount of N mineralised from loss in soil organic C in mineral soils through landuse change or management practices. As explained in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3, land-use change and a variety of 

management practices can have a significant impact on soil organic C storage. Organic C and N are intimately 

linked in soil organic matter. Where soil C is lost through oxidation as a result of land-use or management 

change, this loss will be accompanied by a simultaneous mineralisation of N. Where a loss of soil C occurs, this 

mineralised N is regarded as an additional source of N available for conversion to N2O (Smith and Conen, 2004); 

just as mineral N released from decomposition of crop residues, for example, becomes a source. The same 

default emission factor (EF1) is applied to mineralised N from soil organic matter loss as is used for direct 

emissions resulting from fertiliser and organic N inputs to agricultural land. This is because the ammonium and 

nitrate resulting from soil organic matter mineralisation is of equal value as a substrate for the microorganisms 

producing N2O by nitrification and denitrification, no matter whether the mineral N source is soil organic matter 

loss from land-use or management change, decomposition of crop residues, synthetic fertilisers or organic 

amendments. (Note: the opposite process to mineralisation, whereby inorganic N is sequestered into newly 

formed SOM, is not taken account of in the calculation of the mineralisation N source. This is because of the 

different dynamics of SOM decomposition and formation, and also because reduced tillage in some 

circumstances can increase both SOM and N2O emission.) 

For all situations where soil C losses occur (as calculated in Chapter 2, Equation 2.25) the Tier 1 and 2 methods 

for calculating the release of N by mineralisation are shown below: 

Calculation steps for estimating changes in N supply from mineralisation 

Step 1: Calculate the average annual loss of soil C (∆CMineral, LU) for the area, over the inventory period, using 

Equation 2.25 in Chapter 2. Using the Tier 1 approach, the value for ∆CMineral, LU will have a single value for all 

land-uses and management systems. Using Tier 2, the value for ∆CMineral, LU will be disaggregated by individual 

land-use and/or management systems. 

Step 2: Estimate the N mineralised as a consequence of this loss of soil C (FSOM), using Equation 11.8: 

 

16 The inclusion of the term FSOM is a change from the previous 1996 IPCC Guidelines, which did not include the N from 

mineralisation associated with a loss of soil organic C. 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.16 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

EQUATION 11.8 

N MINERALISED IN MINERAL SOILS AS A RESULT OF LOSS OF SOIL C THROUGH CHANGE IN LAND 

USE OR MANAGEMENT (TIERS 1 AND 2) 

∑ ⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ ⎟ •

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = Δ • LU

SOM Mineral LU R

F C 1000 1 ,

Where: 

FSOM = the net annual amount of N mineralised in mineral soils as a result of loss of soil carbon through 

change in land use or management, kg N 

∆CMineral, LU = average annual loss of soil carbon for each land-use type (LU ), tonnes C (Note: for Tier 1, 

∆Cmineral, LU will have a single value for all land-uses and management systems. Using Tier 2 the value 

for ΔCmineral, LU will be disaggregated by individual land-use and/or management systems. 

R = C:N ratio of the soil organic matter. A default value of 15 (uncertainty range from 10 to 30) for the 

C:N ratio (R) may be used for situations involving land-use change from Forest Land or Grassland 

to Cropland, in the absence of more specific data for the area. A default value of 10 (range from 8 to 

15) may be used for situations involving management changes on Cropland Remaining Cropland. 

C:N ratio can change over time, land use, or management practice 17. If countries can document 

changes in C:N ratio, then different values can be used over the time series, land use, or management 

practice. 

LU = land-use and/or management system type 

Step 3: For Tier 1, the value for FSOM is calculated in a single step. For Tier 2, FSOM is calculated by summing 

across all land-uses and/or management system types (LU). 

Countries that are not able to estimate gross changes of mineral soil C will create a bias in the N2O estimate, and 

it is good practice to acknowledge this limitation in the reporting documentation. It is also good practice to use 

specific data for the C:N ratios for the disaggregated land areas, if these are available, in conjunction with the 

data for carbon changes. 

Area of drained/managed organic soils (FOS) 

The term FOS refers to the total annual area (ha) of drained/managed organic soils (see footnote 4 for definition). 

This definition is applicable for both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods. For all land uses, the areas should be 

stratified by climate zone (temperate and tropical). In addition, for temperate Forest Land the areas should be 

further stratified by soil fertility (nutrient rich and nutrient poor). The area of drained/managed organic soils 

(FOS) may be collected from official national statistics. Alternatively, total areas of organic soils from each 

country are available from FAO (http://faostat.fao.org/), and expert advice may be used to estimate areas that are 

drained/managed. For Forest Land, national data will be available at soil survey organisations and from wetland 

surveys, e.g., for international conventions. In case no stratification by soil fertility is possible, countries may 

rely on expert judgment. 

11.2.1.4 UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

Uncertainties in estimates of direct N2O emissions from managed soils are caused by uncertainties related to the 

emission factors (see Table 11.1 for uncertainty ranges), natural variability, partitioning fractions, activity data, 

lack of coverage of measurements, spatial aggregation, and lack of information on specific on-farm practices. 

Additional uncertainty will be introduced in an inventory when emission measurements that are not 

representative of all conditions in a country are used. In general, the reliability of activity data will be higher than 

that of the emission factors. As an example, further uncertainties may be caused by missing information on 

observance of laws and regulations related to handling and application of fertiliser and manure, and changing 

management practices in farming. Generally, it is difficult to obtain information on the actual observance of laws 

and possible emission reductions achieved as well as information on farming practices. For more detailed 

guidance on uncertainty assessment refer to Volume 1, Chapter 3. 

 

17 Information on C:N ratios in forest and cropped soils may be found in the following references: Aitkenhead-Peterson et 

al., 2005; Garten et al., 2000; John et al., 2005; Lobe et al., 2001; Snowdon et al., 2005, and other references cited by 

these authors. 
Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

TABLE 11.2 

DEFAULT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATION OF N ADDED TO SOILS FROM CROP RESIDUES a

Crop 

Dry matter 

fraction of 

harvested 

product 

(DRY) 

Above-ground residue dry matter AGDM(T) (Mg/ha): 

AGDM(T) = (Crop(T)/1000)* slope(T) + intercept(T) N 

abo

Slope 

 2 s.d. as % of mean Intercept  2 s.d. as % of mean R2 adj. 

Major crop typesGrains 0.88 1.09  2% 0.88  6% 0.65 Beans & pulsesb 0.91 1.13  19% 0.85  56% 0.28 Tubersc 0.22 0.10  69% 1.06  70% 0.18 Root crops, otherd 0.94 1.07  19% 1.54  41% 0.63 N-fixing forages 0.90 0.3  50% default 0 - - Non-N-fixing forages 0.90 0.3  50% default 0 - - Perennial grasses 0.90 0.3  50% default 0 - - Grass-clover mixtures 0.90 0.3  50% default 0 - - Individual crops Maize 0.87 1.03  3% 0.61  19% 0.76 Wheat 0.89 1.51  3% 0.52  17% 0.68 Winter wheat 0.89 1.61  3% 0.40  25% 0.67 Spring wheat 0.89 1.29  5% 0.75  26% 0.76 Rice 0.89 0.95 19% 2.46  41% 0.47 Barley 0.89 0.98  8% 0.59  41% 0.68 Oats 0.89 0.91  5% 0.89  8% 0.45 Millet 0.90 1.43  18% 0.14  308% 0.50 Sorghum 0.89 0.88  13% 1.33  27% 0.36 Ryee 0.88 1.09  50% default 0.88  50% default - 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

TABLE 11.2 (CONTINUED) 

DEFAULT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATION OF N ADDED TO SOILS FROM CROP RESIDUES a

Crop 

Dry matter 

fraction of 

harvested 

product 

(DRY) 

Above-ground residue dry matter AGDM(T) (Mg/ha): 

AGDM(T) = (Crop(T)/1000)* slope(T) + intercept(T) N co

aboresi

Slope 

 2 s.d. as % of mean Intercept  2 s.d. as % of mean R2 adj. 

Soyabeanf 0.91 0.93  31% 1.35  49% 0.16 Dry beang 0.90 0.36  100% 0.68  47% 0.15 Potatoh 0.22 0.10  69% 1.06  70% 0.18 Peanut (w/pod)i 0.94 1.07  19% 1.54  41% 0.63 Alfalfaj 0.90 0.29k  31% 0 - - Non-legume hayj 0.90 0.18  50% default 0 - - a Source: Literature review by Stephen A. Williams, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University. (Email: stevewi@warnercnr.colostate.edu

of the original references is given in Annex 11A.1. 

b The average above-ground residue:grain ratio from all data used was 2.0 and included data for soya bean, dry bean, lentil, cowpea, black gram, and pea. c Modelled after potatoes. d Modelled after peanuts. e No data for rye. Slope and intercept values are those for all grain. Default s.d. f The average above-ground residue:grain ratio from all data used was 1.9. g Ortega, 1988 (see Annex 11A.1). The average above-ground residue:grain ratio from this single source was 1.6. default s.d. for root:AGB. h The mean value for above-ground residue:tuber ratio in the sources used was 0.27 with a standard error of 0.04. I The mean value for above-ground residue: pod yield in the sources used was 1.80 with a standard error of 0.10. j Single source. Default s.d. for root:AGB. k This is the average above-ground biomass reported as litter or harvest losses. This does not include reported stubble, which averaged 0.165 x Reported Yields. Dl Estimate of root turnover to above-ground production based on the assumption that in natural grass systems below-ground biomass is approximately equal to tw

root turnover in these systems averages about 40% (30% to 50%) per year. Default s.d. 

m This is an estimate of non-tuber roots based on the root:shoot values found for other crops. If unmarketable tuber yield is returned to the soil then data are derive

(unmarketable yield = 0.08 * marketable yield = 0.29 * above-ground biomass) suggest that the total residues returned might then be on the order of 0.49 * abov

n This is an estimate of root turnover in perennial systems. Default s.d. p It is assumed here that grass dominates the system by 2 to 1 over legumes. 
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.19 

11.2.2 Indirect N2O emissions 

In addition to the direct emissions of N2O from managed soils that occur through a direct pathway (i.e., directly 

from the soils to which N is applied), emissions of N2O also take place through two indirect pathways (as 

illustrated above in Section 11.2). 

The first of these pathways is the volatilisation of N as NH3 and oxides of N (NOx), and the deposition of these 

gases and their products NH4

+

 and NO3

-

 onto soils and the surface of lakes and other waters. The sources of N as 

NH3 and NOx are not confined to agricultural fertilisers and manures, but also include fossil fuel combustion, 

biomass burning, and processes in the chemical industry (see Volume 1, Chapter 7, Section 7.3). Thus, these 

processes cause N2O emissions in an exactly analogous way to those resulting from deposition of agriculturally 

derived NH3 and NOx, following the application of synthetic and organic N fertilisers and /or urine and dung 

deposition from grazing animals. The second pathway is the leaching and runoff from land of N from synthetic 

and organic fertiliser additions, crop residues 18, mineralisation of N associated with loss of soil C in mineral and 

drained/managed organic soils through land-use change or management practices, and urine and dung deposition 

from grazing animals. Some of the inorganic N in or on the soil, mainly in the NO3

- form, may bypass biological 

retention mechanisms in the soil/vegetation system by transport in overland water flow (runoff) and/or flow 

through soil macropores or pipe drains. Where NO3

-

 is present in the soil in excess of biological demand, e.g., 

under cattle urine patches, the excess leaches through the soil profile. The nitrification and denitrification 

processes described at the beginning of this chapter transform some of the NH4

+

 and NO3

-

 to N2O. This may take 

place in the groundwater below the land to which the N was applied, or in riparian zones receiving drain or 

runoff water, or in the ditches, streams, rivers and estuaries (and their sediments) into which the land drainage 

water eventually flows. 

This methodology described in this Chapter addresses the following N sources of indirect N2O emissions from 

managed soils arising from agricultural inputs of N: 

 synthetic N fertilisers (FSN); 

 organic N applied as fertiliser (e.g., applied animal manure 19, compost, sewage sludge, rendering waste and 

other organic amendments) (FON); 

 urine and dung N deposited on pasture, range and paddock by grazing animals (FPRP); 

 N in crop residues (above- and below-ground), including N-fixing crops and forage/pasture renewal returned 

to soils (FCR) 20; and 

 N mineralisation associated with loss of soil organic matter resulting from change of land use or 

management on mineral soils (FSOM) 20. 

The generic Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods described below can be used to estimate aggregate total indirect N2O 

emissions from agricultural N additions to managed soils for an entire country. If a country is estimating its 

direct N2O from managed soils by land-use category, the indirect N2O emissions can also be estimated by the 

same disaggregation of land-use categories using the equations presented below with activity data, partitioning 

fractions, and/or emission factors specific for each land-use category. The methodology for estimating indirect 

N2O emissions from combustion-related and industrial sources is described in Volume 1, Chapter 7, Section 7.3. 

11.2.2.1 CHOICE OF METHOD

Refer to the decision tree in Figure 11.3 (Indirect N2O Emissions) for guidance on which Tier method to use. 

 

18 The inclusion of crop residues as an N input into the leaching and runoff component is a change from the previous IPCC 

Guidelines. 

19 Volatilisation and subsequent deposition of nitrogen from the manure in manure management systems is covered in the 

manure management section of this Volume. 

20 Nitrogen from these components is only included in the leaching/run-off component of indirect N2O emission. 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.20 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

Figure 11.3 Decision tree for indirect N2O emissions from managed soils 

Start

For

each N source,

do you have rigorously

documented country-specific

emission factors (EF4 or EF5) and as appropriate 

rigorously documented

country-specific partitioning fractions 

(FracGASF,FracGASM, FracLEACH)

values?

Obtain countryspecific data.

Estimate emissions using the Tier 1

equation with default emission

and partitioning factors and

available activity data.

Note:

1: N sources include: synthetic N fertilizer, organic N additions, urine and dung depositions, crop residue, N mineralization/immobilization 

associated with loss/gain of soil C on mineral soils as a result of land use change or management practices (crop residue and N

mineralization/immobilization is only accounted for in the indirect N2O emissions from leaching/runoff). Sewage sludge or other organic N 

additions can be included if sufficient information is available.

2: See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting Section 4.1.2 on limited resources), for 

discussion of key categories and use of decision trees.

3: As a rule of thumb, a sub-source category would be significant if it accounts for 25-30% of emissions from the source category.

Is this a

key category2

and is this N source 

significant3

?

No

Yes

Estimate emissions using Tier 2 equation, 

country-specific activity data and 

country-specific emission factors and 

partitioning fractions, or Tier 3 method.

Yes

Yes

Box 1: Tier 1

Box 2: Tier 2

No

Estimate emissions with Tier 2 equation, 

using a mix of country-specific and other 

available data and country-specific

emission and partitioning factors.

For each

agricultural N source1

, for both

volatilization and leaching/runoff, ask: 

Do you have country-specific

activity data?

Box 4: Tier 2 or 3

Do you

have rigorously

documented country-specific

EF values (EF4 or EF5) and as

appropriate rigorously documented countryspecific partitioning fractions

(FracGASF, FracGASM, FracLEACH)

values?

Estimate emissions using Tier 1 or Tier 2

equation, country-specific activity data 

and a mix of county-specific or default

emission factors and partitioning fractions.

No

Yes

Box 3: Tier 1 or 2

No
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.21 

Tier 1 

Volatilisation, N2O(ATD)

The N2O emissions from atmospheric deposition of N volatilised from managed soil are estimated using 

Equation 11.9: 

EQUATION 11.9 

N2O FROM ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION OF N VOLATILISED FROM MANAGED SOILS (TIER 1) 

[ ] ( ) (( ) ) N2O(ATD) N FSN FracGASF FON FPRP FracGASM EF4 − = • + + • •

Where: 

N2O(ATD)–N = annual amount of N2O–N produced from atmospheric deposition of N volatilised from 

managed soils, kg N2O–N yr-1

FSN = annual amount of synthetic fertiliser N applied to soils, kg N yr-1

FracGASF = fraction of synthetic fertiliser N that volatilises as NH3 and NOx, kg N volatilised (kg of N 

applied)-1 (Table 11.3) 

FON = annual amount of managed animal manure, compost, sewage sludge and other organic N additions 

applied to soils, kg N yr-1

FPRP = annual amount of urine and dung N deposited by grazing animals on pasture, range and paddock, 

kg N yr-1 

FracGASM = fraction of applied organic N fertiliser materials (FON) and of urine and dung N deposited by 

grazing animals (FPRP) that volatilises as NH3 and NOx, kg N volatilised (kg of N applied or 

deposited)-1 (Table 11.3) 

EF4 = emission factor for N2O emissions from atmospheric deposition of N on soils and water surfaces, 

[kg N–N2O (kg NH3–N + NOx–N volatilised)-1] (Table 11.3) 

Conversion of N2O(ATD)-N emissions to N2O emissions for reporting purposes is performed by using the 

following equation: 

N2O(ATD) = N2O(ATD) –N • 44/28 

Leaching/Runoff, N2O(L)

The N2O emissions from leaching and runoff in regions where leaching and runoff occurs are estimated using 

Equation 11.10: 

EQUATION 11.10 

N2O FROM N LEACHING/RUNOFF FROM MANAGED SOILS IN REGIONS WHERE LEACHING/RUNOFF 

OCCURS (TIER 1) 

( ) N2O(L) N FSN FON FPRP FCR FSOM FracLEACH (H ) EF5 − = + + + + • • −

Where:

N2O(L)–N = annual amount of N2O–N produced from leaching and runoff of N additions to managed 

soils in regions where leaching/runoff occurs, kg N2O–N yr-1

FSN = annual amount of synthetic fertiliser N applied to soils in regions where leaching/runoff occurs, kg 

N yr-1

FON = annual amount of managed animal manure, compost, sewage sludge and other organic N additions 

applied to soils in regions where leaching/runoff occurs, kg N yr-1

FPRP = annual amount of urine and dung N deposited by grazing animals in regions where leaching/runoff 

occurs, kg N yr-1 (from Equation 11.5) 

FCR = amount of N in crop residues (above- and below-ground), including N-fixing crops, and from 

forage/pasture renewal, returned to soils annually in regions where leaching/runoff occurs, kg N yr-1

FSOM = annual amount of N mineralised in mineral soils associated with loss of soil C from soil organic 

matter as a result of changes to land use or management in regions where leaching/runoff occurs, kg 

N yr-1 (from Equation 11.8) 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.22 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

FracLEACH-(H) = fraction of all N added to/mineralised in managed soils in regions where leaching/runoff 

occurs that is lost through leaching and runoff, kg N (kg of N additions)-1 (Table 11.3) 

EF5 = emission factor for N2O emissions from N leaching and runoff, kg N2O–N (kg N leached and 

runoff)-1 (Table 11.3) 

Note: If a country is able to estimate the quantity of N mineralised from organic soils, then include this as an 

additional input to Equation 11.10. 

Conversion of N2O(L)–N emissions to N2O emissions for reporting purposes is performed by using the following 

equation: 

N2O(L) = N2O(L)–N • 44/28 

Tier 2 

If more detailed emission, volatilisation or leaching factors are available to a country than are presented in Table 

11.3, further disaggregation of the terms in the equations can also be undertaken. For example, if specific 

volatilisation factors are available for the application of synthetic fertilisers (FSN) under different conditions i, 

Equation 11.9 would be expanded to become 21: 

EQUATION 11.11 

N2O FROM ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION OF N VOLATILISED FROM MANAGED SOILS (TIER 2) 

( ) [ ] ( ) N2O( ) N F Frac FON FPRP FracGASM EF4

i

ATD SNi GASFi •

⎭

⎬

⎫

⎩

⎨

⎧ − = ∑ • + + •

Where: 

N2O(ATD)–N = annual amount of N2O–N produced from atmospheric deposition of N volatilised from 

managed soils, kg N2O–N yr-1

FSNi = annual amount of synthetic fertiliser N applied to soils under different conditions i, kg N yr-1

FracGASFi

 = fraction of synthetic fertiliser N that volatilises as NH3 and NOx under different conditions i, 

kg N volatilised (kg of N applied)-1

FON = annual amount of managed animal manure, compost, sewage sludge and other organic N additions 

applied to soils, kg N yr-1

FPRP = annual amount of urine and dung N deposited by grazing animals on pasture, range and paddock, 

kg N yr-1 

FracGASM = fraction of applied organic N fertiliser materials (FON) and of urine and dung N deposited by 

grazing animals (FPRP) that volatilises as NH3 and NOx, kg N volatilised (kg of N applied or 

deposited)-1 (Table 11.3) 

EF4 = emission factor for N2O emissions from atmospheric deposition of N on soils and water surfaces, 

[kg N–N2O (kg NH3–N + NOx–N volatilised)-1] (Table 11.3) 

Note: If a country is able to estimate the quantity of N mineralised from drainage/management of organic soils 

then include this as one of the N inputs into the Tier 2 modification of Equation 11.10. 

Conversion of N2O(ATD)–N emissions to N2O(ATD) emissions for reporting purposes is performed by using the 

following equation: 

N2O(ATD) = N2O(ATD)–N • 44/28 

 

21 It is important to note that Equation 11.11 is just one of many possible modifications to Equation 11.9, and is also meant to 

illustrate how Equation 11.10 could be modified, when using the Tier 2 method. The eventual form of Equation 11.11 will 

depend upon the availability of land use and/or condition-specific partitioning fractions and/or emission factors and the 

ability to which a country can disaggregate its activity data. 
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.23 

Tier 3 

Tier 3 methods are modelling or measurement approaches. Models are useful as they can relate the variables 

responsible for the emissions to the size of those emissions. These relationships may then be used to predict 

emissions from whole countries or regions for which experimental measurements are impracticable. For more 

information refer to Chapter 2, Section 2.5, where guidance is given that provides a sound scientific basis for the 

development of a Tier 3 Model-based Accounting System. 

11.2.2.2 CHOICE OF EMISSION, VOLATILISATION AND LEACHING 

FACTORS

The method for estimating indirect N2O emissions includes two emission factors: one associated with volatilised 

and re-deposited N (EF4), and the second associated with N lost through leaching/runoff (EF5). The method also 

requires values for the fractions of N that are lost through volatilisation (FracGASF and FracGASM) or 

leaching/runoff (FracLEACH-(H)). The default values of all these factors are presented in Table 11.3. 

Note that in the Tier 1 method, for humid regions or in dryland regions where irrigation (other than drip 

irrigation) is used, the default FracLEACH-(H) is 0.30. For dryland regions, where precipitation is lower than 

evapotranspiration throughout most of the year and leaching is unlikely to occur, the default FracLEACH is zero. 

The method of calculating whether FracLEACH-(H) = 0.30 should be applied is given in Table 11.3. 

Country-specific values for EF4 should be used with great caution because of the special complexity of 

transboundary atmospheric transport. Although inventory compilers may have specific measurements of N 

deposition and associated N2O flux, in many cases the deposited N may not have originated in their country. 

Similarly, some of the N that volatilises in their country may be transported to and deposited in another country, 

where different conditions that affect the fraction emitted as N2O may prevail. For these reasons the value of EF4

is very difficult to determine, and the method presented in Volume 1, Chapter 7, Section 7.3 attributes all 

indirect N2O emissions resulting from inputs to managed soils to the country of origin of the atmospheric NOx

and NH3, rather than the country to which the atmospheric N may have been transported. 

11.2.2.3 CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

In order to estimate indirect N2O emissions from the various N additions to managed soils, the parameters FSN, 

FON, FPRP, FCR, FSOM need to be estimated. 

Applied synthetic fertiliser (FSN) 

The term FSN refers to the annual amount of synthetic fertiliser N applied to soils. Refer to the activity data 

section on direct N2O emissions from managed soils (Section 11.2.1.3) and obtain the value for FSN.

Applied organic N fertilisers (FON) 

The term FON refers to the amount of organic N fertiliser materials intentionally applied to soils. Refer to the 

activity data section on direct N2O emissions from managed soils (Section 11.2.1.3) and obtain the value for FON. 

Urine and dung from grazing animals (FPRP) 

The term FPRP refers to the amount of N deposited on soil by animals grazing on pasture, range and paddock. 

Refer to the activity data section on direct N2O emissions from managed soils (Section 11.2.1.3) and obtain the 

value for FPRP. 

Crop residue N, including N from N-fixing crops and forage/pasture renewal, returned to soils (FCR) 

The term FCR refers to the amount of N in crop residues (above- and below-ground), including N-fixing crops, 

returned to soils annually. It also includes the N from N-fixing and non-N-fixing forages mineralised during 

forage/pasture renewal. Refer to the activity data section on direct N2O emissions from managed soils (Section 

11.2.1.3) and obtain the value for FCR. 

Mineralised N resulting from loss of soil organic C stocks in mineral soils (FSOM) 

The term FSOM refers to the amount of N mineralised from the loss of soil organic C in mineral soils through 

land-use change or management practices. Refer to the activity data section on direct N2O emissions from 

managed soils (Section 11.2.1.3) and obtain the value for FSOM. 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.24 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

TABLE 11.3 

DEFAULT EMISSION, VOLATILISATION AND LEACHING FACTORS FOR INDIRECT SOIL N2O EMISSIONS

Factor Default 

value 

Uncertainty 

range 

EF4 [N volatilisation and re-deposition], kg N2O–N (kg NH3–N + NOX–N 

volatilised)-1 22 0.010 0.002 - 0.05 

EF5 [leaching/runoff], kg N2O–N (kg N leaching/runoff) -1 23 0.0075 0.0005 - 

0.025 

FracGASF [Volatilisation from synthetic fertiliser], (kg NH3–N + NOx–N) (kg N 

applied) –1 0.10 0.03 - 0.3 

FracGASM [Volatilisation from all organic N fertilisers applied , and dung and 

urine deposited by grazing animals], (kg NH3–N + NOx–N) (kg N applied or 

deposited) –1

0.20 0.05 - 0.5 

FracLEACH-(H) [N losses by leaching/runoff for regions where Σ(rain in rainy 

season) - Σ (PE in same period) > soil water holding capacity, OR where 

irrigation (except drip irrigation) is employed], kg N (kg N additions or 

deposition by grazing animals)-1

0.30 0.1 - 0.8 

Note: The term FracLEACH previously used has been modified so that it now only applies to regions where soil water-holding 

capacity is exceeded, as a result of rainfall and/or irrigation (excluding drip irrigation), and leaching/runoff occurs, and 

redesignated as FracLEACH-(H). In the definition of FracLEACH-(H) above, PE is potential evaporation, and the rainy season(s) can 

be taken as the period(s) when rainfall > 0.5 * Pan Evaporation. (Explanations of potential and pan evaporation are available 

in standard meteorological and agricultural texts). For other regions the default FracLEACH is taken as zero. 

11.2.2.4 UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

Uncertainties in estimates of indirect N2O emissions from managed soils are caused by uncertainties related to 

natural variability and to the emission, volatilization and leaching factors (see Table 11.3 for uncertainty ranges), 

activity data, and lack of measurements. Additional uncertainty will be introduced in an inventory when values 

for these factors that are not representative of all conditions in a country are used. In general, the reliability of 

activity data will be higher than that of the emission, volatilisation and leaching factors. As with direct emissions, 

further uncertainties may be caused by missing information on observance of laws and regulations related to 

handling and application of fertiliser and manure, and changing management practices in farming. Generally, it 

is difficult to obtain information on the actual observance of laws and possible emission reductions achieved as 

well as information on farming practices. Uncertainties in emission factors are nevertheless likely to dominate 

and uncertainty ranges are indicated in the tabulations above. For more detailed guidance on uncertainty 

assessment refer to Volume 1, Chapter 3. 

 

22 The uncertainty range has been widened, in view of results showing that emissions from some environments, particularly 

deciduous forests receiving high rates of N deposition from the atmosphere, are substantially higher than those previously 

reported (e.g., Butterbach-Bahl et al., 1997; Brumme et al., 1999; Denier van der Gon and Bleeker, 2005)., while there is 

also clear evidence that EFs can be very low (<< 0.01) in low-deposition environments (e.g., Corre et al., 1999). The mean 

value of 0.01 has been retained, because it coincides with the revised EF for direct emission from managed land (see Table 

11.1 above), and it is recognised that in many countries a substantial fraction of the indirect emissions will in fact originate 

from managed land. 

23 The overall value for the emission factor for leached N (EF5) has been changed from 0.025 to 0.0075 kg N2O–N/kg N 

leached/ in runoff water. This emission factor incorporates three components: EF5g, EF5r and EF5e, which are the emission 

factors for groundwater and surface drainage, rivers, and estuaries, respectively. Recent results indicate that the previously 

used emission factor for groundwater and surface drainage (0.015) was too high and should be reduced to 0.0025 kg N2O–

N/kg mineral N (mainly nitrate) leached (Hiscock et al., 2002, 2003; Reay et al., 2004, 2005; Sawamoto et al., 2005). The 

emission factor for rivers has also been reduced from 0.0075 kg N2O–N/kg N to the same value, 0.0025 kg N2O–N/kg N in 

the water. This is in recognition that while still lower mean values (of the order of 0.0003 to 0.0005) have been reported by, 

e.g., Dong et al., (2004) and Clough et al , (2006) for relatively short river systems, there remains the possibility that higher 

values than those obtained by these authors apply to longer river systems. The value for estuaries remains at 0.0025 kg 

N2O–N/kg N. 
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.25 

11.2.3 Completeness, Time series, QA/QC 

COMPLETENESS 

Complete coverage of the direct and indirect N2O emissions from managed land requires estimation of emissions 

for all of the anthropogenic inputs and activities (FSN, FON, FCR, FPRP, FSOM and FOS), if they occur. Experience 

has shown that none of these sub-categories are likely to be missed in inventories, although countries may have 

difficulty obtaining accurate statistics for all sub-categories, particularly the amounts of crop residues (by crop 

type) that are typically returned to soils, and the area of drained/managed organic soils. 

Currently, the IPCC method does not explicitly address activities such as plastic sheeting or greenhouse 

hydroponic systems that may influence N2O emissions. These additional activities can be considered if 

appropriate, and if national activity data for these activities are collected. Some of these activities can be readily 

included in national inventories based on available information. For the additional commercial and noncommercial organic fertilisers, the default emission factor used for applied N may be used. Further research will 

be required to develop the flux data that are needed to develop emission factors for use of plastic sheeting and 

hydroponic systems in horticultural areas.

DEVELOPING A CONSISTENT TIME SERIES 

Ideally, the same method is used throughout the entire time series. However, it is likely that the detail and 

disaggregation of emissions estimates from this source category will improve over time. In cases where some 

historical data are missing, it may be necessary to derive the data using other references or data sets. For example, 

annual data of areas for drained/managed organic soils may need to be derived by interpolation from a longer 

time series based upon long-term trends (e.g., from decadal statistics over a 20- or 30-year period). Estimates of 

the amounts of crop residue incorporated annually may also need to be derived based on expert judgment. 

Interannual changes in FracGASF, FracGASM, FracLEACH, EF4, and EF5 are not expected unless mitigation measures 

are undertaken. These factors should be changed only with the proper justification and documentation. If updated 

defaults for any of these variables become available through future research, inventory agencies may recalculate 

their historical emissions. 

It is important that the methods used reflect the results of action taken to reduce emissions and the methods and 

results are thoroughly documented. If policy measures are implemented such that activity data are affected 

directly (e.g., increased efficiency of fertiliser use resulting in a decrease in fertiliser consumption), the effect of 

the policy measures on emissions will be transparent, assuming the activity data are carefully documented. In 

cases where policy measures have an indirect effect on activity data or emission factors (e.g., a change in animal 

population feed practices to improve animal productivity that results in a change in N excretion per head), 

inventory input data should reflect these effects. The inventory text should thoroughly explain the effect of the 

policies on the input data. 

INVENTORY QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) 

Tier 1 checks of the emission estimates should be undertaken by the persons preparing the inventory along with 

expert review by people outside the inventory preparation process. Additional Tier 2 quality control checks and 

quality assurance procedures may also be applicable, particularly if higher tier methods are used to determine 

direct and indirect N2O emissions from this source category. Supplement the general QA/QC related to data 

processing, handling, and reporting, with source-specific category procedures discussed below. The persons who 

collect data are responsible for reviewing the data collection methods, checking the data to ensure that they are 

collected and aggregated or disaggregated correctly, and cross-checking the data with previous years to ensure 

that the data are reasonable. The basis for the estimates, whether statistical surveys or ‘desk estimates’, must be 

reviewed and described as part of the QC effort. Documentation is a crucial component of the review process 

because it enables reviewers to identify mistakes and suggest improvements. 

Review of emission factors 

The inventory compiler should review the default emission factors and document the rationale for selecting 

specific values. 

If using country-specific factors, the inventory compiler should compare them to the IPCC default emission 

factors. Also, if accessible, relate to country-specific emission factors used by other countries with comparable 

circumstances. Differences between country-specific factors and default or other country factors should be 

explained and documented. 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.26 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

Review of any direct measurements 

If using factors based on direct measurements, the inventory compiler should review the measurements to ensure 

that they are representative of the actual range of environmental and soil management conditions, and interannual climatic variability, and were developed according to recognised standards (IAEA, 1992). 

The QA/QC protocol in effect at the sites should also be reviewed and the resulting estimates compared between 

sites and with default-based estimates. 

Activity data check 

The inventory compiler should compare country-specific data on synthetic fertiliser consumption with fertiliser 

usage data from the IFA and synthetic fertiliser consumption estimates from the FAO. 

The inventory compiler should ensure that N excretion data are consistent with those used for the manure 

management systems source category. 

National crop production statistics should be compared to FAO crop production statistics. 

The inventory compiler should ensure that the QA/QC has been completed for livestock characterisation, 

because data are shared with the livestock section. 

Country-specific values for various parameters should be compared to IPCC defaults and any significant 

differences explained. 

External review 

The inventory compiler should conduct expert (peer) review when first adopting or revising the method. Given 

the complexity and uniqueness of the parameters used in calculating country-specific factors for these categories, 

specialists in the field should be involved in such reviews. 

REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION 

Direct and Indirect N2O Emissions 

Document and archive all information required to produce the national emissions inventory estimates. Direct and 

indirect N2O emissions from managed soils are reported in aggregate or disaggregated by land-use category or 

other subcategory (e.g., ricelands) under the IPCC category ‘AFOLU’. Reporting should be done at the same 

level of disaggregation as was done when calculating the emissions. In addition to completing the reporting 

formats, the following additional information is necessary to document the estimate: 

Activity data: Sources of all activity data used in the calculations (i.e., complete citations for the statistical 

databases from which data were collected), and in cases when activity data were not available directly from 

databases, the information and assumptions that were used to derive the activity data. This documentation should 

include the frequency of data collection and estimation, and estimates of accuracy and precision. 

Emission factors: The sources of the emission factors that were used (specific IPCC default values or otherwise). 

In inventories in which country- or region-specific emission factors were used, or in which new methods (other 

than the default IPCC methods) were used, the scientific basis of these emission factors and methods should be 

completely described and documented. This includes defining the input parameters and describing the process by 

which these emission factors and methods are derived, as well as describing sources and magnitudes of 

uncertainties. 

Emission results: Significant fluctuations in emissions between years should be explained. A distinction should 

be made between changes in activity levels and changes in emission, volatilisation and leaching factors from 

year to year, and the reasons for these changes documented. If different factors are used for different years, the 

reasons for this should be explained and documented. 

11.3 CO2 EMISSIONS FROM LIMING 

Liming is used to reduce soil acidity and improve plant growth in managed systems, particularly agricultural 

lands and managed forests. Adding carbonates to soils in the form of lime (e.g., calcic limestone (CaCO3), or 

dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) leads to CO2 emissions as the carbonate limes dissolve and release bicarbonate (2HCO3

-

), which evolves into CO2 and water (H2O). 

Inventories can be developed using Tier 1, 2 or 3 approaches, with each successive Tier requiring more detail 

and resources than the previous one. It is good practice for countries to use higher tiers if CO2 emissions from 

liming are a key source category. 
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.27 

11.3.1 Choice of method 

A decision tree is provided in Figure 11.4 to assist inventory compilers with selection of the appropriate tier.

Tier 1 

CO2 Emissions from additions of carbonate limes to soils can be estimated with Equation 11.12: 

EQUATION 11.12 

ANNUAL CO2 EMISSIONS FROM LIME APPLICATION

( ) ( ) CO C Emission M Limestone EFLimestone M Dolomite EFDolomite − = • + • 2

Where: 

CO2–C Emission = annual C emissions from lime application, tonnes C yr-1

M = annual amount of calcic limestone (CaCO3) or dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2), tonnes yr-1

EF = emission factor, tonne of C (tonne of limestone or dolomite) -1

Procedural steps for calculations 

The steps for estimating CO2-C emissions from liming are:

Step 1: Estimate the total amount (M) of carbonate containing lime applied annually to soils in the country, 

differentiating between limestone and dolomite (Note: M should include all lime applied to soils even the 

proportion applied in mixture with fertilizers). Note that while carbonate limes are the dominant liming material 

used in managed systems, oxides (e.g., CaO) and hydroxides of lime are used to a limited extent for soil liming. 

These materials do not contain inorganic carbon and are not included in calculations for estimating CO2

emissions from application to soils (CO2 is produced in their manufacture but not following soil application). 

Step 2: Apply an overall emission factor (EF) of 0.12 for limestone and 0.13 for dolomite. These are equivalent 

to carbonate carbon contents of the materials (12% for CaCO3, 13% for CaMg(CO3)2 )). The uncertainty is -50% 

based on approximations suggesting emissions may be less than half of the maximum value, which is the current 

factor value (West and McBride, 2005) (Note: uncertainties can not exceed the emission factors because these 

value represent the absolute maximum emissions associated with liming). 

Step 3: Multiply the total amounts of limestone and dolomite by their respective emission factors, and sum the 

two values to obtain the total CO2–C emission. 

Multiply by 44/12 to convert CO2–C emissions into CO2. 

Tier 2 

Tier 2 inventories also use Equation 11.12 and procedural steps, which were provided in the Tier 1 approach, but 

incorporate country-specific data to derive emission factors (EF). 

Overall, the CO2 emissions from liming are expected to be less than using the Tier 1 approach, which assumes 

that all C in applied lime is emitted as CO2 in the year of application. However, emissions are likely to be less 

than assumed using the Tier 1 approach because the amount of CO2 emitted after liming will depend on sitespecific influences and transport of dissolved inorganic C through rivers and lakes to the ocean. Tier 2 emission 

factors could be used to better approximate the emissions. 

Tier 3 

Tier 3 methods use more sophisticated models or measurement procedures, and the procedural steps will depend 

on the country-specific estimation system. Such an analysis would likely necessitate modelling carbon fluxes 

associated with primary and secondary carbonate mineral formation and dissolution in soils, as well as the 

leaching and transport of dissolved inorganic C. Note that increases in soil inorganic C or dissolved inorganic C 

attributed to liming does not constitute a net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. Rather, carbonate-C from 

liming that is not returned to the atmosphere is considered a net reduction in the emissions associated with this 

practice. See the Tier 3 section for soil inorganic C in Chapter 2 for additional discussion (Section 2.3.3.1 on 

Change in Soil C Stocks). 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.28 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

Figure 11.4 Decision tree for identification of appropriate tier to estimate CO2 emissions 

from liming. 

Start

Are CO2

emissions from liming a

key category1

?

Collect data for the 

Tier 3 or Tier 2 

method.

Use country-specific data

and emission factor for

the Tier 2 method.

No

Note:

1: See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting Section 4.1.2 on limited resources), for 

discussion of key categories and use of decision trees.

Are

country-specific data

and emission factor

available?

Yes

Yes

Use data to derive 

emission factor

for Tier 1 method.

No

No

Box 2: Tier 2

Box 3: Tier 3

Yes

Use the detailed activity

data for Tier 3 model-based

and/or direct measurementbased method.

Are detailed

data on lime application

available and information to estimate

carbonate mineral formation/dissolution, leaching and 

transport of inorganic C (for application of models 

and/or measurementbased approaches)?

Are data

to derive emission factor 

available?

Gather data to

allow derivation of

emission factor.

Yes

No

Box 1: Tier 1
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.29 

11.3.2 Choice of emission factors 

Tier 1 

Default emission factors (EF) are 0.12 for limestone and 0.13 for dolomite. 

Tier 2 

Derivation of emission factors using country-specific data could entail differentiation of sources with variable 

compositions of lime; different carbonate liming materials (limestone as well as other sources such as marl and 

shell deposits) can vary somewhat in their C content and overall purity. Each material would have a unique 

emission factor based on the C content. 

Country-specific emission factors could also account for the proportion of carbonate-C from liming that is 

emitted to the atmosphere as CO2 (e.g., West and McBride, 2005). Dissolved inorganic C in soils can form 

secondary minerals and precipitate with the Ca or Mg that was added during liming. Furthermore, dissolved 

inorganic C (bicarbonate) can be transported with Ca and Mg through the soil to deep groundwater, lakes and 

eventually to the ocean (Robertson and Grace, 2004). In either case, the net emission of CO2 to the atmosphere is 

less than the original amount of C added as lime. Country-specific emission factors can be derived if there are 

sufficient data and understanding of inorganic carbon transformations, in addition to knowledge about transport 

of aqueous Ca, Mg, and inorganic C. It is good practice to document the source of information and method used 

for deriving country-specific values in the reporting process. 

Tier 3 

Tier 3 approaches are based on estimating variable emissions from year to year, which depends on a variety of 

site specific characteristics and environmental drivers. No emission factors are directly estimated. 

11.3.3 Choice of activity data 

Tier 1 

Optimally, national usage statistics for carbonate lime would be available to determine the amount applied 

annually to soils (M). These data provide the most direct inference on application. Alternatively, annual sales of 

carbonate lime may be used to infer the amount that is applied to soils, under the assumption that all lime sold to 

farmers, ranchers, foresters, etc. is applied during that year. It is also possible to approximate carbonate lime 

application based on lime availability on an annual basis. Availability is computed based on the new supply for 

that year (annual domestic mining and import records) minus exports and usage in industrial processes. In the 

last approach, it is assumed that all available lime is applied in the year of interest. 

Usage statistics may be gathered as part of the national census or enterprise records, while banks and the lime 

industry should have information on sales and domestic production. Import/export records are typically 

maintained by customs or similar organizations in the government. It is good practice to average data records 

over three years (current year and two most recent) if emissions are not computed on an annual basis for 

reporting purposes. 

Tier 2 

In addition to the activity data that are described for Tier 1, Tier 2 may incorporate information on the purity of 

carbonate limes as well as site-level and hydrological characteristics to estimate the proportion of carbonate-C in 

lime applications that is emitted to the atmosphere. 

Tier 3 

For Tier 3 model-based and/or direct measurement-based inventories, it is likely that more detailed activity data 

are needed, relative to Tier 1 or 2 methods, but the exact requirements will be dependent on the model or 

measurement design. 

11.3.4 Uncertainty assessment 

Two sources of uncertainty exist for CO2 emissions from liming: 1) uncertainties in the amount of carbonate 

lime applied to soils; and 2) uncertainties in the net amount of carbonate-C from liming applications that is 

emitted as CO2. Activity data uncertainties depend on the accuracy of application statistics, sales, import/export 

records, mining records, and/or usage data. Usage data have the least uncertainty because sales, import/export 

and mining records have additional uncertainties due to no direct inference about application. Inventory 

compilers may use a conservative approach and assume that all lime available for application or purchased is 

applied to soils. This approach may over- or under-estimate emissions in individual years if the total amount of 

lime available or purchased is not applied in a particular year. Over the long term, this bias should be negligible, 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.30 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

however, assuming there is no long-term stockpiling of lime. Alternatively, inventory compilers can address 

uncertainties in both the amount of lime available for application and the amount applied in a particular 

inventory year. 

Uncertainties in the net amount of C added to soils from liming that is emitted as CO2 are dependent on the Tier. 

Using the Tier 1 method, it is assumed all C in the lime is emitted as CO2 to the atmosphere. This is a 

conservative approach, and the default emission factors are considered certain given this assumption. In practice, 

however, some of the C in lime is likely to be retained in the soil as inorganic C and not emitted as CO2, at least 

in the year of application. Consequently, default emission factors can lead to systematic biases in the emission 

estimates. 

It is good practice, therefore, to develop country-specific emission factors or advanced estimation approaches 

with Tier 2 or 3 methods, particularly if liming is a key source. While the higher tier approaches are likely to 

limit bias, there may be additional uncertainties associated with these approaches that will need to be addressed. 

Those uncertainties can stem from insufficient data on site characteristics, hydrology and other environmental 

variables, which influences the transport and conversion of inorganic C into CO2. There may also be 

uncertainties due to insufficient knowledge about the processes and/or ability of country-specific emission 

factors or advanced estimation systems to represent the fate of C added to soils in carbonate limes. 

11.3.5 Completeness, Time series, QA/QC 

COMPLETENESS 

Tier 1 

Tier 1 inventories are complete if emissions are computed based on a full accounting of all limestone and 

dolomite applied to soils. Carbonate lime usage statistics provide the most direct inference on applications to 

soils. However, sales records or mining data combined with import/export and industrial processing records 

provide sufficient information to approximate the amount of lime applied to soils. If current data are not 

sufficient due to incomplete records, it is good practice to gather additional data for future inventory reporting, 

particularly if liming C emissions are a key source category. 

Tier 2 

Completeness in Tier 2 inventories is dependent on the adequacy of the activity data (see Tier 1), but will also 

depend on additional country-specific data that were used to refine emission factors. This may include the 

availability of data about the purity of lime and/or site-level and hydrological data to better specify emission 

factors relating the amount of CO2 released per amount of C added to soils in carbonate lime. 

Tier 3 

Beyond the considerations for Tier 1 and 2, completeness of Tier 3 inventories is also dependent on the data 

needs and representativeness of the measurement design and/or modelling framework. Inventory compilers 

should review their approach and determine if the advanced estimation system are adequate to address the net 

release of CO2 from carbonate limes applied to soils. If gaps or limitations are identified, it is good practice to 

gather additional data so that the fate of liming carbonates is fully addressed by the Tier 3 method. 

TIME SERIES CONSISTENCY 

Tier 1 

The same activity data and emissions factors should be applied across the entire time series for consistency. At 

the Tier 1 level, default emission factors are used so consistency is not an issue for this component. However, the 

basis for the activity data may change if new data are gathered, such as a statistical survey compiling information 

on applications to soils versus older activity data relying strictly on mining and import/export records. While it is 

good practice for the same data protocols and procedures to be used across the entire time series, in some cases 

this may not be possible, and inventory compilers should determine the influence of changing data sources on 

the trends. Guidance on recalculation for these circumstances is presented in Volume 1, Chapter 5. 

Tier 2 

Consistency in activity data records across the time series is important for Tier 2 inventories (see Tier 1). In 

addition, new factors that are developed based on country-specific data should also be applied across the entire 

time series. In rare cases when this is not possible, inventory compilers should determine the influence of 

changing emission factors on the trends; additional guidance on recalculation for these circumstances can be 

found in Volume 1, Chapter 5. 

Tier 3 

Similar to Tier 2, it is good practice to apply the country-specific estimation system throughout the entire time 

series; inventory agencies should use the same measurement protocols (sampling strategy, method, etc.) and/or 

model-based system throughout the inventory time period. 
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.31 

QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 

Tier 1 

It is good practice to implement Quality Assurance/Quality Controls with internal and independent reviews of 

inventory data and results, ensuring: 1) activity data have been processed appropriately to estimate application to 

soils; 2) activity data have been properly transcribed into the worksheets or inventory computation software; and 

3) emission factors have been assigned appropriately. 

Internal reviews should be conducted by the inventory compiler(s), and may involve visual inspection as well as 

built-in program functions to check data entry and results. Independent reviews are conducted by other agencies, 

experts or groups who are not directly involved with the compilation. These reviews need to consider the validity 

of the inventory approach, thoroughness of inventory documentation, methods explanation and overall 

transparency. 

Tier 2 

In addition to the Quality Assurance/Quality Control measures under Tier 1, the inventory compiler should 

review the country-specific emission factors for Tier 2 inventories. If using factors based on direct 

measurements, the inventory compiler should review the measurements to ensure that they are representative of 

the actual range of environmental conditions. If accessible, it is good practice to compare the country-specific 

factors with Tier 2 emission factors used by other countries with comparable circumstances, in addition to the 

IPCC defaults. Given the complexity of inorganic C transformation, specialists in the field should be involved in 

the review process to provide an independent critique of the emission factors. 

Tier 3 

Country-specific inventory systems will likely need additional Quality Assurance/Quality Control measures, but 

this will be dependent on the systems that are developed. It is good practice to develop a Quality 

Assurance/Quality Control protocol that is specific to the country’s advanced estimation system, archive the 

reports, and include summary results in reporting documentation. 

REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION 

Tier 1 

For Tier 1, inventory compilers should document trends and uncertainties in carbon lime applications to soils and 

relate those patterns to the CO2 emission trends. Significant fluctuations in annual emissions across the time 

series should be explained. 

It is good practice to archive actual databases, such as mining records or usage statistics from surveys, and 

procedures used to process the data (e.g., statistical programs). The worksheets or inventory software, which was 

used to estimate emissions, should be archived along with input/output files that were generated to produce the 

results. 

In cases where activity data are not available directly from databases or multiple data sets were combined, the 

information, assumptions and procedures that were used to derive the activity data should be described. This 

documentation should include the frequency of data collection and estimation, and uncertainty. Use of expert 

knowledge should be documented and correspondences archived. 

Tier 2 

In addition to the considerations for Tier 1, inventory compilers should document the underlying basis for 

country-specific emission factors, as well as archive metadata and data sources used to estimate country-specific 

values. Reporting documentation should include the new factors (i.e., means and uncertainties), and it is good 

practice to include a discussion in the inventory report about differences between these values and default 

factors or country-specific factors from regions with similar circumstances to those of the reporting country. 

When discussing trends in emissions and removals from year to year, a distinction should be made between 

changes in activity levels and changes in methods, including emission factors, and the reasons for these changes 

need to be documented. 

Tier 3 

Tier 3 inventories need similar documentation about activity data and emission/removal trends as lower tier 

approaches, but additional documentation should be included to explain the underlying basis and framework of 

country-specific estimation systems. With measurement-based inventories, it is good practice to document the 

sampling design, laboratory procedures and data analysis techniques. Measurement data should be archived, 

along with results from data analyses. For Tier 3 approaches using modelling, it is good practice to document the 

model version and provide a model description, as well as permanently archive copies of all model input files, 

source code and executable programs. 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.32 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

11.4 CO2 EMISSIONS FROM UREA 

FERTILIZATION 

Adding urea to soils during fertilisation leads to a loss of CO2 that was fixed in the industrial production process. 

Urea (CO(NH2)2) is converted into ammonium (NH4

+

), hydroxyl ion (OH-), and bicarbonate (HCO3

-

), in the 

presence of water and urease enzymes. Similar to the soil reaction following addition of lime, bicarbonate that is 

formed evolves into CO2 and water. This source category is included because the CO2 removal from the 

atmosphere during urea manufacturing is estimated in the Industrial Processes and Product Use Sector (IPPU 

Sector). 

Inventories can be developed using Tier 1, 2 or 3 approaches, with each successive Tier requiring more detail 

and resources than the previous. It is good practice for countries to use higher tiers if CO2 emissions from urea 

are a key source category. 

11.4.1 Choice of method 

A decision tree is provided in Figure 11.5 to assist inventory compilers with selection of the appropriate tier.

Tier 1 

CO2 emissions from urea fertilisation can be estimated with Equation 11.13: 

EQUATION 11.13 

ANNUAL CO2EMISSIONS FROM UREA APPLICATION

CO2−C Emission = M • EF

Where: 

CO2–C Emission = annual C emissions from urea application, tonnes C yr-1

M = annual amount of urea fertilisation, tonnes urea yr-1

EF = emission factor, tonne of C (tonne of urea)-1

Procedural Steps for Calculations 

The steps for estimating CO2–C emissions from urea applications are:

Step 1: Estimate the total amount of urea applied annually to a soil in the country (M). 

Step 2: Apply an overall emission factor (EF) of 0.20 for urea, which is equivalent to the carbon content of urea 

on an atomic weight basis (20% for CO(NH2)2). A default -50% uncertainty may be applied (Note: uncertainties 

can not exceed the default emission factor because this value represents the absolute maximum emissions 

associated with urea fertilization). 

Step 3: Estimate the total CO2–C emission based on the product of the amount of urea applied and the emission 

factor. 

Multiply by 44/12 to convert CO2–C emissions into CO2. Urea is often applied in combination with other 

nitrogenous fertilizers, particularly in solutions, and it will be necessary to estimate the proportion of urea in the 

fertilizer solution for M. If the proportion is not known, it is considered good practice to assume that the entire 

solution is urea, rather than potentially under-estimating emissions for this sub-category. 

Tier 2 

Tier 2 inventories also use Equation 11.13 and procedural steps, which were provided in the Tier 1 approach, but 

incorporate country-specific information to estimate emission factors. 

Tier 3 

CO2 emissions from urea applications could be estimated with more detailed models or measurements that 

incorporate the possibility of bicarbonate leaching to deep groundwater, and/or lakes and oceans, and thus not 

contributing to CO2 emissions, at least not immediately. Note that increases in soil inorganic C from urea 

fertilization do not represent a net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. The removal is estimated in the IPPU 

Sector (Volume 3), and the computations for soils only provide estimates of the amount of emissions associated 

with this practice. See the Tier 3 section for soil inorganic C in Chapter 2 for additional discussion (Section 2.3.3 

on Change in Soil C Stocks). 
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.33 

Figure 11.5 Decision tree for identification of appropriate tier to estimate CO2 emissions 

from urea fertilisation 

Start

Are CO2

emissions from urea

fertilization a key 

category1

?

Collect data for the 

Tier 3 or Tier 2 

method.

Use country-specific data

and emission factor for

the Tier 2 method.

No

Note:

1: See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting Section 4.1.2 on limited resources), for 

discussion of key categories and use of decision trees.

Are

country-specific data

and emission factor

available?

Yes

Yes

Use data to derive 

emission factor

for Tier 1 method.

No

No

Box 2: Tier 2

Box 3: Tier 3

Yes

Use the detailed activity

data for Tier 3 model-based

and/or direct measurementbased method.

Are

detailed data 

on urea application available

and information to estimate leaching and

transport of inorganic C (for application of

models and/or measurement-based

approaches)?

Are data

to derive emission factor 

available?

Gather data to

allow derivation of

emission factor.

Yes

No

Box 1: Tier 1
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.34 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

11.4.2 Choice of emission factor 

Tier 1 

The default emission factor (EF) is 0.20 for carbon emissions from urea applications. 

Tier 2 

Similar to carbonate limes, all C in urea may not be emitted in the year of application. If sufficient data and 

understanding of inorganic C transformation are available, country-specific specific emission factor could be 

derived. It is good practice to document the source of information and method used for deriving country-specific 

values as part of the reporting process. 

Tier 3 

Tier 3 approaches are based on estimating variable emissions from year to year, which depends on a variety of 

site specific characteristics and environmental drivers. No emission factor is directly estimated. 

11.4.3 Choice of activity data 

Tier 1 

Domestic production records and import/export data on urea can be used to obtain an approximate estimate of 

the amount of urea applied to soils on an annual basis (M). It can be assumed that all urea fertiliser produced or 

imported annually minus annual exports is applied to soils. However, supplemental data on sales and/or usage of 

urea can be used to refine the calculation, instead of assuming all available urea in a particular year is 

immediately added to soils. Regardless of the approach, the annual application estimates for urea fertilizers 

should be consistent between CO2 emission from urea and N2O emissions from soils. 

Usage statistics may be gathered as part of the national census or through enterprise records, while banks and the 

fertilizer industry should have information on sales and domestic production. Import/export records are typically 

maintained by customs or similar organizations in the government. It is good practice to average data records 

over three years (current year and two most recent) if emissions are not computed on an annual basis for 

reporting purposes. 

Tier 2 

In addition to the activity data described for Tier 1, Tier 2 may incorporate additional information on site-level 

and hydrological characteristics that were used to estimate the proportion of C in urea that is emitted to the 

atmosphere. 

Tier 3 

For application of dynamic models and/or a direct measurement-based inventory in Tier 3, it is likely that more 

detailed activity data are needed, relative to Tier 1 or 2 methods, but the exact requirements will be dependent on 

the model or measurement design. 

11.4.4 Uncertainty assessment 

Two sources of uncertainty exist for CO2 emissions from urea: 1) uncertainties in the amount of urea applied to 

soils; and 2) uncertainties in the net amount of urea-C that is emitted as CO2. Activity data uncertainties will 

depend on the accuracy of production, sales, import/export, and/or usage data. Usage and sales data are likely to 

have the least uncertainty; import/export and production data have additional uncertainties due to inferences 

about application. Inventory compilers may use a conservative approach and assume that all urea available for 

application or purchased is applied to soils. This approach may create over- or under-estimates in individual 

years if the total amount of urea available or purchased is not applied in a particular year. Over the longer-term 

this bias should be negligible, however, assuming there is no long-term stockpiling of urea fertiliser. 

Alternatively, inventory compilers can address uncertainties in both the amount of urea available for application 

and the amount applied in a particular inventory year. 

Uncertainties in the net amount of C added to soils from urea fertilization that is emitted as CO2 are dependent 

on the Tier. Using the Tier 1 method, it is assumed all C in the urea is lost as CO2 from the atmosphere. This is a 

conservative approach, and the default emission factors are considered certain (given this assumption). In 

practice, however, some of the C in urea may be retained in the soil as inorganic C and not emitted as CO2, at 

least in the year of application. Consequently, default emission factors can lead to systematic biases in the 

emission estimates. 

It is good practice, therefore, to develop country-specific emission factors or advanced estimation approaches 

with Tier 2 or 3 methods, respectively, particularly if urea-C is a key source. While the higher tier approaches 
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.35 

are likely to limit bias, there are additional uncertainties that will need to be addressed. Those uncertainties can 

stem from insufficient data on site characteristics, hydrology, and other environmental variables which 

influences the transport and conversion of inorganic C into CO2. There may also be uncertainties due to 

insufficient knowledge about the processes and/or the ability of country-specific emission factors or estimation 

systems to represent the fate of urea-C. 

11.4.5 Completeness, Time series consistency, QA/QC 

COMPLETENESS 

Tier 1 

Tier 1 inventories are complete if emissions are computed based on a full accounting of all urea that is applied to 

soils. Urea usage statistics or sales provide the most direct inference on applications to soils, but production and 

import/export records are sufficient for making an approximate estimate of the amount of urea applied to soils. If 

current data are not sufficient due to incomplete records, it is good practice to gather additional data for future 

inventory reporting, particularly if urea-C emissions are a key source category. 

Tier 2 

Completeness in Tier 2 inventories is also dependent on the adequacy of the activity data (see Tier 1), but will 

also depend on additional country-specific data that was used to refine emission factors. This may include the 

availability of data about site-level and hydrological data that are used to better specify emission factors relating 

the amount of CO2 released per amount of urea-C added to soils. 

Tier 3 

Beyond the considerations for Tiers 1 and 2, completeness of Tier 3 inventories is also dependent on the data 

needs and representativeness of the measurement design and/or modelling framework. Inventory compilers 

should review their approach and determine if the advanced estimation system is adequate to address the net 

release of CO2 from urea applied to soils. If gaps or limitations are identified, it is good practice to gather 

additional data so that the fate of urea-C is fully addressed by the Tier 3 method. 

TIME SERIES CONSISTENCY 

Tier 1 

The same activity data and emissions factors should be applied across the entire time series for consistency. At 

the Tier 1 level, default emission factors are used so consistency is not an issue for this component. However, the 

basis for the activity data may change if new data are gathered, such as a statistical survey compiling information 

on urea applications to soils versus older activity relying strictly on domestic production and import/export data. 

While it is good practice for the same data protocols and procedures to be used across the entire time series, in 

some cases this may not be possible, and inventory compilers should determine the influence of changing data 

sources on the trends. Guidance on recalculation for these circumstances is presented in Volume 1, of Chapter 5. 

Tier 2 

Consistency in activity data records across the time series is important for Tier 2 inventories (see Tier 1). In 

addition, new factors that are developed based on country-specific data should be applied across the entire time 

series. In rare cases when this is not possible, inventory compilers should determine the influence of changing 

emission factors on the trends; additional guidance on recalculation for these circumstances can be found in 

Volume 1, Chapter 5. 

Tier 3 

Similar to Tier 2, it is good practice to apply the country-specific estimation system throughout the entire time 

series; inventory agencies should use the same measurement protocols (sampling strategy, method, etc.) and/or 

model-based system throughout the inventory time period. 

QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 

Tier 1 

It is good practice to implement Quality Assurance/Quality Controls with internal and independent reviews of 

inventory data and results, ensuring 1) activity data have been processed appropriately to estimate application to 

soils, 2) activity data have been properly transcribed into the worksheets or inventory computation software, and 

3) emission factors have been assigned appropriately. 

Internal reviews should be conducted by the inventory compiler(s), and may involve visual inspection as well as 

built-in program functions to check data entry and results. Independent reviews are conducted by other agencies, 

experts or groups who are not directly involved with the compilation. These reviews need to consider the validity 

of the inventory approach, thoroughness of inventory documentation, methods explanation and overall 

transparency. 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.36 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

Tier 2 

In addition to the Quality Assurance/Quality Control measures under Tier 1, the inventory compiler should 

review the country-specific emission factors for Tier 2 inventories. If using factors based on direct 

measurements, the inventory compiler should review the measurements to ensure that they are representative of 

the actual range of environmental conditions. If accessible, it is good practice to compare the country-specific 

factors with Tier 2 emission factors used by other countries with comparable circumstances, in addition to the 

IPCC defaults. Given the complexity of inorganic C transformations, specialists in the field should be involved 

in the review process, to provide an independent critique of the emission factors. 

Tier 3 

Country-specific inventory systems will likely need additional Quality Assurance/Quality Control measures, but 

this will be dependent on the systems that are developed. It is good practice to develop a Quality 

Assurance/Quality Control protocol that is specific to the country’s advanced estimation system, archive the 

reports, and include summary results in reporting documentation. 

REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION 

Tier 1 

For Tier 1, inventory compilers should document trends and uncertainties in urea applications to soils and relate 

those patterns to the CO2 emission trends. Significant fluctuations in annual emissions across the time series 

should be explained. 

It is good practice to archive databases, such as domestic production, import/export records or usage statistics 

from surveys, and procedures used to process the data (e.g., statistical programs). The worksheets or inventory 

software, which was used to estimate emissions, should be archived along with the input/output files that were 

generated to produce the results. 

In cases where activity data are not available directly from databases or multiple data sets were combined, the 

information, assumptions and procedures that were used to derive the activity data should be described. This 

documentation should include the frequency of data collection and estimation, and uncertainty. Use of expert 

knowledge should be documented and correspondences archived. 

Tier 2 

In addition to the considerations for Tier 1, inventory compilers should document the underlying basis for 

country-specific emission factors, as well as archive metadata and data sources used to estimate country-specific 

values. Reporting documentation should include the new factors (i.e., means and uncertainties), and it is good 

practice to include a discussion in the inventory report about differences between country-specific factors and 

default values or country-specific factors from regions with similar circumstances to those of the reporting 

country. 

When discussing trends in emissions and removals from year to year, a distinction should be made between 

changes in activity levels and changes in methods, including emission factors, and the reasons for these changes 

need to be documented. 

Tier 3 

Tier 3 inventories need similar documentation about activity data and emission/removal trends as lower tier 

approaches, but additional documentation should be included to explain the underlying basis and framework for 

country-specific estimation systems. With measurement-based inventories, it is good practice to document the 

sampling design, laboratory procedures and data analysis techniques. Measurement data should be archived, 

along with results from data analyses. For Tier 3 approaches using modelling, it is good practice to document the 

model version and provide a model description, as well as to permanently archive copies of all model input files, 

source code and executable programs. 
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.37 

Annex 11A.1 References for crop residue data in Table 11.2 

I. Dry matter fraction of harvested product 

Lander, C.H., Moffitt, D., and Alt, K. (1998). Nutrients available from livestock manure relative to crop growth 

requirements. Resource Assessment and Strategic Planning Working paper 98-1. USDA Natural Resource 

Conservation Service. http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/pubs/. 

II. Above-ground residue dry matter 

1. Maize 

Ames, J.W., and Simon, R.H. (1924). Soil potassium as affected by fertilizer treatment and cropping. Bulletin 

379. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio. 

Anonymous (1924). Forty-third annual report for 1923-24. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 382. 

Wooster, OH. 

Anonymous (1926). Forty-fourth annual report for 1924-25. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 392. 

Wooster, OH. 

Bustillo, J. J. and Gallaher, R.N. (1989). Dry matter Partitioning in No-tillage Tropical Corn in Florida. p.40-42. 

In I. D. Teare, E. Brown, and C.A. Trimble (ed.) 1989 Southern Conservation Tillage Conference. SB 89-

1. Tallahassee, FL. 12-13 July, 1989. Univ. of Fla., North Fla. Res. and Educ. Ctr., Quincy, FL 32351. 

Buyanovsky, G.A. and Wagner, G.H. (1986). Post-harvest residue input to cropland. Plant and Soil 93:57-65. 

Donald, C.M. and Hamblin, J. (1976). The biological yield and harvest index of cereals as agronomic and plant 

breeding criteria. Adv. Agron., 28: 361-405. 

Fisher, K.S. and Palmer, A.F.E. (1983). Maize. In: Symposium on Potential Productivity of Field Crops Under 

Different Environments. International Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines. 

Graybill, J.S., Cox, W.J. and Otis, D.J. (1991). Yield and quality of forage maize as influenced by hybrid, 

planting date, and plant density. Agronomy Journal, 83: 559-564. 

Hutcheson, T.B., Hodgson, E.R., and Wolfe, T.K. (1917). Corn culture. Virginia Agricultural Experiment 

Station Bull. 214. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA. 

Jones, J.N. Jr., Moody, J.E., and Lillard, J.H. (1969). Effects of tillage, no tillage, and mulch on soil water and 

plant growth. Agron. J. 61:719-721. 

Jones Jr., J.N., Moody, J.E., Shear, G.M., Moschler, W.W. and Lillard, J.H. (1968). The no-tillage system for 

corn (Zea mays L.). Agron. J. 60:17-20. 

Noll, C.F., Gardner, F.D. and Irvin, C.J (1930). A field test of different sources of phosphorous. School of 

Agriculture and Experiment Station Bull. 252. Pennsylvania State College 

Noll, C.F., Gardner, F.D. and Irvin, C.J. (1931). Fiftieth anniversary of the General Fertilizer Tests 1881-1931. 

School of Agriculture and Experiment Station Bull. 264. Pennsylvania State College. 

Ockerby, S.E. and Fukai, S. (2001). The management of rice grown on raised beds with continuous furrow 

irrigation. Field Crops Res. 69:215-226. 

Peters, S.E., Wander, M.M., Saparito, L.S., Harris, G.H. and Friedman, D.B. (1997). Management impacts on 

SOM and related soil properties in a long-term farming systems trial in Pennsylvania: 1981-1991. In: Soil 

Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). 

CRC Press, Inc. 

Peterson, G.A. and Westfall, D.G. (1997). Management of dryland agroecosystems in the Central Great Plains of 

Colorado. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and 

C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G. and Wood, W. (1989). Crop and soil management in dryland agroecosystems. 

Technical Bulletin TB89-3. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., Poss, D., Larson, K. and Thompson, D.L. (1997). Sustainable 

dryland agroecosystem management. Technical Bulletin TB97-3. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State 

University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., McGee, E. and Kolberg, R. (1992). Crop and soil management in 

dryland agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin TB92-2. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.38 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., McGee, E. and Kolberg, R. (1991). Crop and soil management in 

dryland agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin TB91-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., Kolberg, R. and Rouppet, B. (1994). Sustainable dryland 

agroecosystem management. Technical Bulletin TB94-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., Kolberg, R. and Rouppet, B. (1993). Sustainable dryland 

agroecosystem management. Technical Bulletin TB93-4. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., Kolberg, R. and Poss, D. (1996). Sustainable dryland agroecosystem 

management. Technical Bulletin TB96-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., Kolberg, R. and Poss, D. (1995). Sustainable dryland agroecosystem 

management. Technical Bulletin TB95-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Wood, W. and Ross, S. (1988). Crop and soil management in dryland 

agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin LTB88-6. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., McGee, E., Westfall, D.G., Wood, C.W. and Sherrod, L. (1990). Crop and soil management in 

dryland agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin TB90-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Pierce, F.J. and Fortin, M.C. (1997). Long-term tillage and periodic plowing of a no-tilled soil in Michigan: 

Impacts, yield, and soil organic matter. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. 

K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Russell, W.A. (1991). Genetic improvement of maize yields. Advances in Agronomy 46:245-298. 

Sewell, M.C. and Call, L.E. (1925). Tillage investigations relating to wheat production. Tech. Bull. 18. 

Agricultural Experiment Station. Kansas State Agricultural College. 

Shear, G.M. and Moschler, W.W. (1969). Continuous corn by the no-tillage and conventional tillage methods: A 

six-year comparison. Agron. J. 61:524-526. 

Tapper, D.C. (1983). Changes in physiological traits associated with grain yield improvement in single-cross 

maize hybrids from 1930 to 1970. Ph.D. Dissertation. Agronomy Department, Iowa State University, 

Ames, IA. 

Thorne, C.E. (1924). The maintenance of soil fertility. Bulletin 381. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station. 

Throckmorton, R.I. and Duley, F.L. (1935). Twenty years of soil fertility investigations. Kansas. Agricultural 

Experiment Station Tech. Bull. 40. Kansas State College of Agriculture and Applied Science. Manhattan, 

KS. 

Vanotti, M.B., Bundy, L.G. and Peterson, A.E. (1997). Nitrogen fertilizer and legume-cereal rotation effects on 

soil productivity and organic matter dynamics in Wisconsin. In Soil Organic Matter in Temperate 

Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Wianco, A.T. and Jones, S.C. (1918). The value of manure on Indiana soils. Purdue University Agricultural 

Experiment Station. Bull. No. 222. Lafayette, IN. 

Wianco, A.T., Conner, S.D. and Jones, S.C. (1919). The value of legumes on Indiana soils. Purdue University 

Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. No. 226. Lafayette, IN. 

2. Winter wheat 

Austin, R.B., Bingham, J., Blackwell, R.D., Evans, L.T., Ford, M.A., Morgan, C.L. and Taylor, M. (1980). 

Genetic improvements in winter wheat yields since 1900 and associated physiological changes. J. Agric. 

Sci., Camb. 94:675-689. 

Barraclough, P.B. and Leigh, R.A. (1984). The growth and activity of winter wheat roots in the field: the effect 

of sowing date and soil type on root growth of high yielding crops. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 103:59-74. 

Black, A.L. and Tanaka, D.L. (1997). A conservation tillage-cropping systems study in the Northern Great 

Plains of the United States. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul, K. Paustian, 

E.T. Elliott and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Bolinder, M.A., Angers, D.A. and Dubuc, J.P. (1997). Estimating shoot to root ratios and annual carbon inputs in 

soils for cereal crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63:61-67. 

Bruce, R.R. and Langdale, G.W. (1997). Soil carbon level dependence upon crop culture variables in a thermicudic region. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, 

and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.39 

Bruckner, P.L. and Morey, D.D. (1988). Nitrogen effects on soft red winter wheat yield, agronomic 

characteristics, and quality. Crop Sci. 28:152-157. 

Buyanovsky, G.A. and Wagner, G.H. (1986). Post-harvest residue input to cropland. Plant and Soil 93:57-65. 

Cox, T.S., Shroyer, J.P., Liu, B.-H., Sears, R.G. and Martin, T.J. (1988). Genetic improvements in agronomic 

traits of hard red winter wheat cultivars from 1919 to 1987. Crop Science 28:756-760. 

Donald, C.M. and Hamblin, J. (1976). The biological yield and harvest index of cereals as agronomic and plant 

breeding criteria. Adv. Agron., 28: 361-405. 

Eck, H.V. (1986). Profile modification and irrigation effects on yield and water use of wheat. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 

50:724-729. 

Entz, M.H. and Fowler, D.B. (1991). Agronomic performance of winter versus spring wheat. Agron. J. 83:527-

532. 

Gent, M.P.N. and Kiyomoto, R.K. (1989). Assimilation and distribution of photosynthate in winter wheat 

cultivars differing in harvest index. Crop Sci. 29:120-125. 

Halvorson, A.D., Vigil, M.F., Peterson, G.A. and Elliott, E.T. (1997). Long-term tillage and crop residue 

management study at Akron, Colorado. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. 

K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Ishaq, M., Ibrahim, M. and Lal, R. (2001). Tillage effect on nutrient uptake by wheat and cotton as influenced by 

fertilizer rate. Soil and Tillage Res. 62:41-53. 

Jensen, M.E. and Sletten, W.H. (1965). Evapotranspiration and soil moisture-fertilizer interrelations with 

irrigated winter wheat in the Southern High Plains. USDA Agricultural Research Service. Conservation 

Research Report No. 4. 

Jones, O.R., Stewart, B.A. and Unger, P.W. (1997). Management of dry-farmed Southern Great Plains soils for 

sustained productivity. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, 

E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Lafever, H.N. (1976). Ohio performance trials of soft red winter wheats including 1976 results. Agronomy Dept. 

Series 203. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. Wooster, OH. 

Lyon, D.J., Monz, C.A., Brown, R.E. and Metherell, A.K. (1997). Soil organic matter changes over two decades 

of winter wheat – fallow cropping in western Nebraska. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate 

Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Miller, C.M. (1939). A physiological study of the winter wheat plant at different stages of its development. Tech. 

Bull. 47. Agricultural Experiment Station. Kansas State College of Agriculture and Applied Science. 

Musick, J.T. and Dusek, D.A. (1980). Planting date and water deficit effects on development and yield of 

irrigated winter wheat. Agron. J. 72: 45-52. 

Noll, C.F., Gardner, F.D. and Irvin, C.J. (1931). Fiftieth anniversary of the General Fertilizer Tests 1881-1931. 

Pennsylvania State College School of Agriculture and Experiment Station Bull. 264. 

Noll, C.F., Gardner, F.D. and Irvin, C.J (1930). A field test of different sources of phosphorous. Pennsylvania 

State College School of Agriculture and Experiment Station Bull. 252. 

Peterson, G.A. and Westfall, D.G. (1997). Management of dryland agroecosystems in the Central Great Plains of 

Colorado. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul, K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and 

C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G. and Wood, W. (1989). Crop and soil management in dryland agroecosystems. 

Technical Bulletin TB89-3. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., Poss, D., Larson, K. and Thompson, D.L. (1997). Sustainable 

dryland agroecosystem management. Technical Bulletin TB97-3. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State 

University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., McGee, E. and Kolberg, R. (1992). Crop and soil management in 

dryland agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin TB92-2. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., McGee, E. and Kolberg, R. (1991). Crop and soil management in 

dryland agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin TB91-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., Kolberg, R. and Rouppet, B. (1994). Sustainable dryland 

agroecosystem management. Technical Bulletin TB94-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.40 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., Kolberg, R. and Rouppet, B. (1993). Sustainable dryland 

agroecosystem management. Technical Bulletin TB93-4. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., Kolberg, R. and Poss, D. (1996). Sustainable dryland agroecosystem 

management. Technical Bulletin TB96-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., Kolberg, R. and Poss, D. (1995). Sustainable dryland agroecosystem 

management. Technical Bulletin TB95-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Wood, W. and Ross, S. (1988). Crop and soil management in dryland 

agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin LTB88-6. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., McGee, E., Westfall, D.G., Wood, C.W. and Sherrod, L. (1990). Crop and soil management in 

dryland agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin TB90-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Rao, S.C., Coleman, S.W. and Volesky, J.D. (2000). Yield and quality of wheat, triticale, and elytricum forage in 

the Southern Plains. Crop Sci. 40:1308-1312. 

Rasmussen, P.E. and Parton, W.J. (1994). Long-term effects of residue management in wheat-fallow: I. Inputs, 

yield, and soil organic matter. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:523-530. 

Rasmussen, P.E., Smiley, R.W. and Albrecht, S.L. (1996). Long-term residue management experiment: 

Pendleton, Oregon, USA. IN: Evaluation of Soil Organic Matter Models Using Existing Long-term 

Datasets. D. S. Powlson, P. Smith, and J. U. Smith (eds.). Springer-Verlag, Germany. 

Sewell, M.C. and Call, L.E. (1925). Tillage investigations relating to wheat production. Tech. Bull. 18. 

Sharma, R.C. and Smith, E.L. (1986). Selection for high and low harvest index in three winter wheat populations. 

Crop Sci. 26:1147-1150. 

Siddique, K.H.M., Belford, R.K., Perry, M.W. and Tennant, D. (1989). Growth, development and light 

interception of old and modern wheat cultivars in a Mediterranean-type environment. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 

40:473-487. 

Singh, I.D. and Stoskopf, N.C. (1971). Harvest index in cereals. Agron. J. 63:224-226. 

Skidmore, E.L. and Siddoway, F.H. (1978). Crop residue requirements to control wind erosion. Chapter 2 in 

Crop Residue Management Systems. Am. Soc. Agron. Spec. Pub. No. 31. 

Ten Eyck, A. M. and Shoesmith, V. M. (1907). Small grain crops. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 144. 

Kansas State Agricultural College. Manhattan, KS. 

Thorne, C.E. (1924). The maintenance of soil fertility. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 381. 

Throckmorton, R.I. and Duley, F.L. (1935). Twenty years of soil fertility investigations. Kansas. Agricultural 

Experiment Station Tech. Bull. 40. Kansas State College of Agriculture and Applied Science. Manhattan, 

KS. 

Unger, P.W. (1977). Tillage effects on winter wheat production where the irrigated and dryland crops are 

alternated. Agronomy Journal, 69: 944 – 950. 

Weir, A.H. and Barraclough, P.B. (1986). The effect of drought on the root growth of winter wheat and on its 

uptake from deep loam. Soil Use And Management 2:91-96. 

Wianco, A.T. and Jones, S.C. (1918). The value of manure on Indiana soils. Purdue University Agricultural 

Experiment Station. Bull. No. 222. Lafayette, IN. 

Wianco, A.T., Conner, S.D. and Jones, S.C. (1919). The value of legumes on Indiana soils. Purdue University 

Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. No. 226. Lafayette, IN. 

3. Spring wheat 

Bauer, A. and Zubriski, J.C. (1978). Hard red spring wheat straw yields in relation to grain yields. Soil Sci. Soc. 

Am. J. 42:777-781. 

Black, A.L. and Tanaka, D.L. (1997). A conservation tillage-cropping systems study in the Northern Great 

Plains of the United States. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, 

E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Campbell, C.A. and Zentner, R.P. (1993). Soil organic matter as influenced by crop rotations and fertilization. 

Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:1034-1040. 
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.41 

Campbell, C.A., Davidson, H.R. and Warder, F.G. (1977). Effects of fertilizer N and soil moisture on yield, yield 

components, protein content and N accumulation in the above-ground parts of spring wheat. Can. J. Soil 

Sci. 57:311-327. 

Cassman, K.G., Bryant, D.C., Fulton, A.E. and Jackson, L.F. (1992). Crop ecology, production and management. 

Crop Sci. 32:1251-1258. 

Hucl, P. and Baker, R.J. (1987). A study of ancestral and modern Canadian spring wheats. Can. J. Plant Sci. 

67:87-97. 

Juma, N.G., Izaurralde, R.C., Robertson, J.A. and McGill, W.B. (1997). Crop yield and soil organic matter 

trends over 60 years in a typic cryoboralf at Breton, Alberta. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate 

Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Loffler, C.M., Rauch, T.L. and Busch, R.H. (1985). Grain and plant protein relationships in hard red spring 

wheat. Crop Sci. 25:521-524. 

Perry, M.W. and D’Antuono, M.F. (1989). Yield improvement and associated characteristics of some Australian 

spring wheat cultivars introduced between 1860 and 1982. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 40:457-472. 

Skidmore, E.L. and Siddoway, F.H. (1978). Crop residue requirements to control wind erosion. In: Crop Residue 

Management Systems. Am. Soc. Agron. Spec. Pub. No. 31. 

van Delden, A. (2001). Yield and growth components of potato and wheat under organic nitrogen management. 

Agron. J. 93:1370-1385. 

4. Rice 

Bainton, S.J., Plumb, V.E., Juliano, B.O., Perez, C.M., Roxas, D.B., Kush, G.S., de Jesus, J.C. and Gomez, K.A. 

(1991). Variation in the nutritional value of rice straw. Animal Feed Science and Technology 34, 261-277. 

Cho, Y.S., Choe, Z.R. and Ockerby, S.E. (2001). Managing tillage, sowing rate and nitrogen top-dressing level 

to sustain rice yield in a low-input, direct-sown, rice-vetch cropping system. Australian Journal of 

Experimental Agriculture, 41:61-69. 

Donald, C.M. and Hamblin, J. (1976). The biological yield and harvest index of cereals as agronomic and plant 

breeding criteria. Adv. Agron., 28: 361-405. 

George, T., Magbanua, R., Roder, W., Van Keer, K., Trebuil, G. and Reoma, V. (2001). Upland rice response to 

phosphorous fertilization in Asia. Agron. J. 93:1362-1370. 

Kinery, J.R., McCauley, G., Xie, Y. and Arnold, J.G. (2001). Rice parameters describing crop performance of 

four U. S. cultivars. Agron. J. 93:1354-1361. 

Ockerby, S.E. and Fukai, S. (2001). The management of rice grown on raised beds with continuous furrow 

irrigation. Field Crops Research. 69:215-226. 

San-oh, Y., Mano, Y., Ookawa, T. and Hirasawa, T. (2004). Comparison of dry matter production and associated 

characteristics between direct-sown and transplanted rice plants in a submerged paddy field and 

relationships to planting patterns. Field Crops Res. 87:43-58. 

Turner, F.T. and McCauley, G.N. (1983). Rice. In: Crop – Water Relations. I.D.Teare and M.M. Peet (eds.). 

John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 308-350. 

Yang, J., Zhang, J., Wang, Z., Zhu, Q. and Wang, W. (2001). Remobilization of carbon reserves in response to 

water deficit during grain filling of rice. Field Crops Res. 71:47-55. 

5. Barley 

Alston, A.M. (1980). Response of wheat to deep placement of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers on a soil high 

in phosphorous in the surface layer. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 31:13-24. 

Boukerrou, L. and Rasmussen, D.D. (1990). Breeding for high biomass yield in spring barley. Crop Sci. 30:31-

35. 

Chery, J., Lefevre, B., Robin, P. and Salsac, L. (1981). Barley breeding for high protein content. Relationship 

with nitrate reductase and proteolytic activities. In: Barley Genetics IV. Proceedings of the Fourth 

International Barley Genetics Symposium. Edinburgh Univ. Press. 

Donald, C.M. and Hamblin, J. (1976). The biological yield and harvest index of cereals as agronomic and plant 

breeding criteria. Adv. Agron., 28: 361-405. 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.42 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

Juma, N.G., Izaurralde, R.C., Robertson, J.A. and McGill, W.B. (1997). Crop yield and soil organic matter 

trends over 60 years in a typic cryoboralf at Breton, Alberta. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate 

Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Kirby, E.J.M. (1967). The effect of plant density upon the growth and yield of barley. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 

68:317-324. 

Lekes, J. (1981). Results, main directions in using world collections and genetic resources of spring barley in 

European breeding. In: Barley Genetics IV. Proceedings of the Fourth International Barley Genetics 

Symposium. Edinburgh Univ. Press. 

Mahli, S.S., Grant, C.A., Johnston, A.M. and Gill, K.S. (2001). Nitrogen fertilization management for no-till 

cereal production in the Canadian Great Plains: a review. Soil and Tillage Res. 60:101-122. 

Riggs, T.J., Hanson, P.R., Start, N.D., Miles, D.M., Morgan, C.L. and Ford, M.A. (1981). Comparison of spring 

barley varieties grown in England and Wales between 1880 and 1980. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 97:599-610. 

Siddique, K.H.M., Belford, R.K. and Tennant, D. (1990). Root:shoot ratios of old and modern, tall and semidwarf wheats in a mediterranean environment. Plant and Soil 121:89-98. 

Siddique, K.H.M., Belford, R.K., Perry, M.W. and Tennant, D. (1989). Growth, development and light 

interception of old and modern wheat cultivars in a Mediterranean-type environment. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 

40:473-487. 

Skidmore, E.L. and Siddoway, F.H. (1978). Crop residue requirements to control wind erosion. In: Crop Residue 

Management Systems. Am. Soc. Agron. Spec. Pub. No. 31. 

Ten Eyck, A.M., and Shoesmith, V.M. (1907). Small grain crops. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 144. 

Kansas State Agricultural College. Manhattan, KS. 

Watson, D.J., Thorne, G.N., and French, S.A.W. (1958). Physiological causes of differences in grain yield 

between varieties of barley. Annals of Botany 87:321-352. 

Wych, R.D. and Rasmussen, D.C. (1983). Genetic improvement in malting barley cultivars since 1920. Crop Sci. 

23:1037-1040. 

6. Oats 

Anonymous (1923). Forty-second annual report for 1922-23. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 373. 

Wooster, OH. 

Anonymous (1926). Forty-fourth annual report for 1924-25. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 392. 

Wooster, OH. 

Bolinder, M.A., Angers, D.A. and Dubuc, J.P. (1997). Estimating shoot to root ratios and annual carbon inputs in 

soils for cereal crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63:61-67. 

Brinkman, M.A. and Rho, Y.D. (1984). Response of three oat cultivars to N fertilizer. Crop Science 24:973-977. 

Donald, C.M. and Hamblin, J. (1976). The biological yield and harvest index of cereals as agronomic and plant 

breeding criteria. Adv. Agron. 28:361-405. 

Georgeson, C.C., Burtis, F.C. and Otis, D.H. (1893). Experiments with oats. Experiment Station Bull. No. 42. 

Kansas State Agricultural College. 

Georgeson, C.C., Burtis, F.C. and Otis, D.H. (1896). Experiments with oats. Experiment Station Bull. No. 63. 

Kansas State Agricultural College. 

Georgeson, C.C., Burtis, F.C. and Otis, D.H. (1897). Experiments with oats. Experiment Station Bull. No. 74. 

Kansas State Agricultural College. 

Georgeson, C.C., Cottrell, H.M. and Shelton, W. (1890). Experiments with oats. Experiment Station Bull. No. 13. 

Kansas State Agricultural College. 

Juma, N.G., Izaurralde, R.C., Robertson, J.A. and McGill, W.B. (1997). Crop yield and soil organic matter 

trends over 60 years in a typic cryoboralf at Breton, Alberta. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate 

Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Lawes, D.A. (1977). Yield improvement in spring oats. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 89:751-757. 

Meyers, K.B., Simmons, S.R. and Stuthman, D.D. (1985). Agronomic comparison of dwarf and conventional 

height oat genotypes. Crop Sci. 25:964-966. 
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.43 

Noll, C.F., Gardner, F.D. and Irvin, C.J. (1930). A field test of different sources of phosphorous. Pennsylvania 

State College School of Agriculture and Experiment Station Bull. 252. 

Noll, C.F., Gardner, F.D. and Irvin, C.J. (1931). Fiftieth anniversary of the General Fertilizer Tests 1881-1931. 

Pennsylvania State College School of Agriculture and Experiment Station Bull. 264. 

Rattunde, H.F. and Frey, K.J. (1986). Nitrogen harvest index in oats: Its repeatability and association with 

adaptation. Crop Sci. 26:606-610. 

Sewell, M.C. and Call, L.E. (1925). Tillage investigations relating to wheat production. Tech. Bull. 18. 

Agricultural Experiment Station. Kansas State Agricultural College. 

Ten Eyck, A.M. and Shoesmith, V.M. (1907). Small grain crops. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 144. 

Kansas State Agricultural College. Manhattan, KS. 

Thorne, C.E. (1924). The maintenance of soil fertility. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 381. 

Wianco, A.T. and Jones, S.C. (1918). The value of manure on Indiana soils. Purdue University Agricultural 

Experiment Station. Bull. No. 222. Lafayette, IN. 

Wianco, A.T., Conner, S.D. and Jones, S.C. (1919). The value of legumes on Indiana soils. Purdue University 

Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. No. 226. Lafayette, IN. 

7. Millet 

Peterson, G.A. and Westfall, D.G. (1997). Management of dryland agroecosystems in the Central Great Plains of 

Colorado. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and 

C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G. and Wood, W. (1989). Crop and soil management in dryland agroecosystems. 

Technical Bulletin TB89-3. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., McGee, E. and Kolberg, R. (1992). Crop and soil management in 

dryland agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin TB92-2. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., McGee, E. and Kolberg, R. (1991). Crop and soil management in 

dryland agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin TB91-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., Kolberg, R. and Rouppet, B. (1994). Sustainable dryland 

agroecosystem management. Technical Bulletin TB94-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., Kolberg, R. and Rouppet, B. (1993). Sustainable dryland 

agroecosystem management. Technical Bulletin TB93-4. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Wood, W. and Ross, S. (1988). Crop and soil management in dryland 

agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin LTB88-6. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., McGee, E., Westfall, D.G., Wood, C.W. and Sherrod, L. (1990). Crop and soil management in 

dryland agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin TB90-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

8. Sorghum 

Anonymous (1930). A report of the Tribune Branch Agricultural Experiment Station. Agricultural Experiment 

Station Bull. 250. Kansas State Agricultural College, Manhattan, KS. 

Arnon, I. and Blum, A. (1962). Factors responsible for yield superiority of hybrid sorghum. Israel J. Agric. Res. 

12: 95-105. 

Arnon, I. and Blum, A. (1964). Response of hybrid and self-pollinated sorghum varieties to moisture regime and 

intra-row competition. Israel J. Agric. Res. 14: 45-53. 

Bond, J.J., Army, T.J. and Lehman, O.R. (1964). Row spacing, plant populations and moisture supply as factors 

in dryland grain sorghum production. Agron. J. 56:3-6. 

Bruce, R.R. and Langdale, G.W. (1997). Soil carbon level dependence upon crop culture variables in a thermicudic region. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, 

and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Craufurd, P.Q. and Peacock, J.M. (1993). Effect of heat and drought stress on sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). II. 

Grain yield. Expl. Agric. 29:77-86. 

Donald, C.M. and Hamblin, J. (1976). The biological yield and harvest index of cereals as agronomic and plant 

breeding criteria. Adv. Agron., 28: 361-405. 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.44 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

Eastin, J.D. (1983). Sorghum. In Symposium on Potential Productivity of Field Crops Under Different 

Environments. International Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines. 

Eck, H.V. and Musick, J.T. (1979). Plant water stress effects on irrigated grain sorghum. I. Effects on yield. 

Crop Sci. 19:589-592. 

Jones, O.R., Stewart, B.A. and Unger, P.W. (1997). Management of dry-farmed Southern Great Plains soils for 

sustained productivity. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, 

E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Laryea, K.B. and Unger, P.W. (1995). Grassland converted to cropland: Soil conditions and sorghum yield. Soil 

& Tillage res. 33:29-45. 

Peterson, G.A. and Westfall, D.G. (1997). Management of dryland agroecosystems in the Central Great Plains of 

Colorado. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and 

C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G. and Wood, W. (1989). Crop and soil management in dryland agroecosystems. 

Technical Bulletin TB89-3. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., Poss, D., Larson, K. and Thompson, D.L. (1997). Sustainable 

dryland agroecosystem management. Technical Bulletin TB97-3. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State 

University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., McGee, E. and Kolberg, R. (1992). Crop and soil management in 

dryland agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin TB92-2. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., McGee, E. and Kolberg, R. (1991). Crop and soil management in 

dryland agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin TB91-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., Kolberg, R. and Rouppet, B. (1994). Sustainable dryland 

agroecosystem management. Technical Bulletin TB94-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., Kolberg, R. and Rouppet, B. (1993). Sustainable dryland 

agroecosystem management. Technical Bulletin TB93-4. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Sherrod, L., Kolberg, R. and Poss, D. (1995). Sustainable dryland agroecosystem 

management. Technical Bulletin TB95-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., Westfall, D.G., Wood, W. and Ross, S. (1988). Crop and soil management in dryland 

agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin LTB88-6. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Peterson, G.A., McGee, E., Westfall, D.G., Wood, C.W. and Sherrod, L. (1990). Crop and soil management in 

dryland agroecosystems. Technical Bulletin TB90-1. Dept. of Agronomy, Colorado State University. 

Prihar, S.S. and Stewart, B.A. (1991). Sorghum harvest index in relation to plant size, environment, and cultivar. 

Agron. J. 83:603-608. 

Shinano, T., Osaka, M., Yamada, S. and Tadano, T. (1994). Comparison of root growth and nitrogen absorbing 

ability between Gramineae and Leguminosae during the vegetative stage. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 40:485-495. 

Steiner, J.L. (1986). Dryland grain sorghum water use, light interception, and growth responses to plant 

geometry. Agron. J. 78:720-726. 

Unger, P.W. and Jones, O.R. (1981). Effect of soil water content and a growing season straw mulch on grain 

sorghum. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45:129-134. 

Unger, P.W. and Wiese, A.F. (1979). Managing irrigated winter wheat residues for water storage and subsequent 

dryland grain sorghum production. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43:582-588. 

von Trebra, R.L. and Wagner, F.A. (1932). Tillage practices for south-western Kansas. Agricultural Experiment 

Station Bull. 262. Kansas State College of Agriculture and Applied Science. Manhattan, KS. 

9. Rye 

No data on rye available at this time. 

10. Soyabean 

Anderson, L.R., and Vasilas, B.L. (1985). Effects of planting date on two soybean cultivars: Seasonal dry matter 

accumulation and seed yield. Crop Sci. 25:999-1004. 
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.45 

Bruce, R.R. and Langdale, G.W. (1997). Soil carbon level dependence upon crop culture variables in a thermicudic region. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, 

and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Buyanovsky, G.A. and Wagner, G.H. (1986). Post-harvest residue input to cropland. Plant and Soil 93:57-65. 

Buzzell, R.I. and Buttery, B.R. (1977). Soybean harvest index in hill-plots. Crop Sci. 17:968-970. 

Frederick, J.R., Woolley, J.T., Hesketh, J.D. and Peters, D.B. (1991). Seed yield and agronomic traits of old and 

modern soybean cultivars under irrigation and soil water-deficit. Field Crops research, 27: 71-82. 

Hanway, J.J. and Weber, C.R. (1971). Dry matter accumulation in eight soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) 

varieties. Agron. J. 63:227-230. 

Hodgson, A.S., Holland, J.F. and Rayner, P. (1989). Effects of field slope and duration of furrow irrigation on 

growth and yield of six grain-legumes on a waterlogging-prone vertisol. Field Crops research, 22: 165-

180. 

Kumudini, S., Hume, D.J., and Chu, G. (2001). Genetic improvement in short season soybeans: I. Dry matter 

accumulation, partitioning, and leaf area duration. Crop Sci. 41:391-398. 

Laing, D.R., Kretchmer, P.J., Zuluaga, S. and Jones, P.G. (1983). Field Bean. In Symposium on Potential 

Productivity of Field Crops Under Different Environments. International Rice Research Institute, Manila, 

Philippines. 

Liu, X., Jin, J., Herbert, S.J., Zhang, Q. and Wang, G. (2005). Yield components, dry matter, LAI and LAD of 

soybeans in Northeast China. Field Crops Research, 93: 85-93. 

Peters, S.E., Edwards, W.M. and McCoy, E.L. (1997). Continuous application of no-tillage to Ohio soils: 

Changes in crop yields and organic matter-related soil properties. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate 

Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Sammons, D.J., Peters, D.B. and Hymowitz, T. (1981). Screening soybeans for tolerance to moisture stress: A 

field procedure. Field Crops Research, 3: 321-335. 

Sinclair, T.R., Muchow, R.C., Ludlow, M.M., Leach, G.J., Lawn, R.J. and Foale, M.A. (1987). Field and model 

analysis of the effect of water deficits on carbon and nitrogen accumulation by soybean, cowpea, and 

black gram. Field Crops Research, 17: 121-140. 

Sivakumar, M.V.K., Taylor, H.M. and Shaw, R.H. (1977). Top and root relations of field-grown soybeans. 

Agron. J. 69:470-473. 

Thatcher, L.E. (1925). The soybean in Ohio. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. 384. 

Walker, A.K. and Fioritto, R.J. (1984). Effect of cultivar and planting pattern on yield and apparent harvest 

index in soybean. Crop Sci. 24:154-155. 

11. Dry bean 

Ortega, P.F. (1988). Morphological characterization of six dry bean genotypes grown under non-irrigated 

conditions in Colorado. M.S. Thesis. Department of Agronomy, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

12. Potato 

Heard, J. (2004). Nutrient accumulation and partitioning by potatoes in Manitoba. Proc. of 47th Annual 

Manitoba Society of Soil Science Meeting. Online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/msss/ 

2004/mss600.pdf. 

van Delden, A. (2001). Yield and growth components of potato and wheat under organic nitrogen management. 

Agron. J. 93:1370-1385. 

Zvomuya, F., Rosen, C.J., Russelle, M.P. and Gupta, S.C. (2003). Nitrate leaching and nitrogen recovery 

following application of polyolefin-coated urea to potato. Journal of Environmental Quality, 32: 480-489. 

13. Peanut 

Bell, M.J., Muchow, R.C. and Wilson, G.L. (1987). The effect of plant population on peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) 

in a monsoonal tropical environment. Field Crops Research, 17: 91-107. 

Ghosh, P.K. (2004). Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping 

systems in the semi-arid tropics of India. Field Crops Research, 88: 227-237. 

ICRISAT (2004). Increasing the effectiveness of research on agricultural resource management in the semi-arid 

tropics of southern India by combining cropping systems modeling with farming systems research: A 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.46 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

rewarding experience for Tamil Nadu farmers. International Crops research Institute for the Semi-Arid 

Tropics. Online at: http://www.icrisat.org/. 

Singh, P., Boote, K.J., Rao, A.Y., Iruthayaraj, M.R., Sheikh, A.M., Hundal, S.S., Narang, R.S. and Singh, P. 

(1994). Evaluation of the groundnut model PNUTGRO for crop response to water availability, sowing 

dates, and seasons. Field Crops research, 39: 147-162. 

Witzenberger, A., Williams, J.H. and Lenz, F. (1985). Yield, components of yield and quality responses of 

groundnut (Arachis Hypogaea L.) as influenced by photoperiod and a growth regulator. Field Crops 

research, 12: 347-361. 

14. Alfalfa 

Paustian, K., Andren, O., Clarholm, M., Hansson, A.C., Johansson, G., Lagerlof, J., Lindberg, T., Pettersson, R., 

and Sohlenius, B. (1990). Carbon and nitrogen budgets of four agro-ecosystems with annual and 

perennial crops, with and without fertilization. J. Appl. Ecol. 27:60-84. 

Walley, F.L., Tomm, G.O., Matus, A., Slinkard, A.E. and van Kessel, C. (1996). Allocation and cycling of 

nitrogen in an alfalfa-bromegrass sward. Agronomy Journal, 88: 834-843. 

15. Non-legume hay 

Paustian, K., Andren, O., Clarholm, M., Hansson, A.C., Johansson, G., Lagerlof, J., Lindberg, T., Pettersson, R., 

and Sohlenius, B. (1990). Carbon and nitrogen budgets of four agro-ecosystems with annual and 

perennial crops, with and without fertilization. J. Appl. Ecol. 27:60-84. 

III. N content of above-ground residues 

1. Maize 

Burgess, M.S., Mehuys, G.R. and Madramootoo, C.A. (2002). Nitrogen dynamics of decomposing corn residue 

components under three tillage systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:1350-1358. 

Eghball, B. and Maranville, J.W. (1993). Root development and nitrogen influx of corn genotypes grown under 

combined drought and nitrogen stresses. Agron. J. 85:147-152. 

Heard, J. (2004). Nutrient accumulation and partitioning by grain corn in Manitoba. Proc. of 47th Annual 

Manitoba Society of Soil Science Meeting. Online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/msss/ 

2004/mss601.pdf. 

Janzen, H.H., Beauchemin, K.A., Bruinsma, Y., Campbell, C.A., Desjardins, R.L., Ellert, B.H. and Smith, E.G. 

(2003). The fate of nitrogen in agroecosystems: An illustration using Canadian estimates. Nutrient 

Cycling in Agroecosystems, 67: 85-102. 

Mgheni, D.M., Ndemanisho, E.E., Hvelplund, T. and Weisbjerg, M.R. (2001). Evaluation of the feeding value of 

two tropical cereal straws, maize stover, rice straw and their botanical fractions by nylon and mobile bag 

technique. African Journal of Science and Technology, 2:65-71. 

NRCS (2006). Plant nutrient content database. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U. S. Dept. of 

Agriculture. Online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/nutrient/tbb1.html. 

Reisinger, K., Haslinger, C., Herger, M., Hofbauer, H. (1996). BIOBIB- a Database for Biofuels, THERMIEConference: Renewable Energy Databases, Harwell, United Kingdom. Online at: 

http://www.vt.tuwien.ac.at/biobib/oxford.html. 

Subedi, K.D. and Ma, B.L. (2005). Nitrogen uptake and partitioning in stay-green and leafy-maize hybrids. Crop 

Sci. 45:740-747. 

2. Wheat 

Austin, R.B., Ford, M.A. and Morgan, C.L. (1989). Genetic improvement in the yield of winter wheat: a further 

evaluation. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 112:295-301. 

Campbell, C.A., Davidson, H.R. and Warder, F.G. (1977). Effects of fertilizer N and soil moisture on yield, yield 

components, protein content and N accumulation in the above-ground parts of spring wheat. Can. J. Soil 

Sci. 57:311-327. 

Campbell, C.A. and Zentner, R.P. (1993). Soil organic matter as influenced by crop rotations and fertilization. 

Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:1034-1040. 

Cassman, K.G., Bryant, D.C., Fulton, A.E. and Jackson, L.F. (1992). Crop ecology, production and management. 

Crop Sci. 32:1251-1258. 

NRCS (2006). Plant nutrient content database. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U. S. Dept. of 

Agriculture. Online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/nutrient/tbb1.html. 
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.47 

Reisinger, K., Haslinger, C., Herger, M. and Hofbauer, H. (1996). BIOBIB- a Database for Biofuels, THERMIEConference: Renewable Energy Databases, Harwell, United Kingdom. Online at: 

http://www.vt.tuwien.ac.at/biobib/oxford.html. 

3. Rice 

Mgheni, D.M., Ndemanisho, E.E., Hvelplund, T. and Weisbjerg, M.R. (2001). Evaluation of the feeding value of 

two tropical cereal straws, maize stover, rice straw and their botanical fractions by nylon and mobile bag 

technique. African Journal of Science and Technology, 2:65-71. 

NRCS (2006). Plant nutrient content database. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U. S. Dept. of 

Agriculture. Online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/nutrient/tbb1.html. 

Ockerby, S.E. and Fukai, S. (2001). The management of rice grown on raised beds with continuous furrow 

irrigation. Field Crops Research. 69:215-226. 

Reisinger, K., Haslinger, C., Herger, M. and Hofbauer, H. (1996). BIOBIB- a Database for Biofuels, THERMIEConference: Renewable Energy Databases, Harwell, United Kingdom. Online at: 

http://www.vt.tuwien.ac.at/biobib/oxford.html. 

4. Barley 

Bulman, P. and Smith, D.L. (1993). Accumulation and redistribution of dry matter and nitrogen by spring barley. 

Agron. J. 85:1114-1121. 

Janzen, H.H., Beauchemin, K.A., Bruinsma, Y., Campbell, C.A., Desjardins, R.L., Ellert, B.H. and Smith, E.G. 

(2003). The fate of nitrogen in agroecosystems: An illustration using Canadian estimates. Nutrient 

Cycling in Agroecosystems, 67: 85-102. 

NRCS (2006). Plant nutrient content database. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U. S. Dept. of 

Agriculture. Online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/nutrient/tbb1.html. 

Reisinger, K., Haslinger, C., Herger, M. and Hofbauer, H. (1996). BIOBIB- a Database for Biofuels, THERMIEConference: Renewable Energy Databases, Harwell, United Kingdom. Online at: 

http://www.vt.tuwien.ac.at/biobib/oxford.html. 

5. Oats 

Janzen, H.H., Beauchemin, K.A., Bruinsma, Y., Campbell, C.A., Desjardins, R.L., Ellert, B.H. and Smith, E.G. 

(2003). The fate of nitrogen in agroecosystems: An illustration using Canadian estimates. Nutrient 

Cycling in Agroecosystems, 67: 85-102. 

NRCS (2006). Plant nutrient content database. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U. S. Dept. of 

Agriculture. Online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/nutrient/tbb1.html. 

Reisinger, K., Haslinger, C., Herger, M., Hofbauer, H. (1996). BIOBIB- a Database for Biofuels, THERMIEConference: Renewable Energy Databases, Harwell, United Kingdom. Online at: 

http://www.vt.tuwien.ac.at/biobib/oxford.html. 

Wych, R.D. and Stuthman, D.D. (1983). Genetic improvement in Minnesota-adapted oat cultivars released since 

1923. Crop Sci. 23:879-881. 

6. Millet 

NRCS (2006). Plant nutrient content database. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U. S. Dept. of 

Agriculture. Online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/nutrient/tbb1.html. 

7. Sorghum 

NRCS (2006). Plant nutrient content database. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U. S. Dept. of 

Agriculture. Online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/nutrient/tbb1.html. 

8. Rye 

Janzen, H.H., Beauchemin, K.A., Bruinsma, Y., Campbell, C.A., Desjardins, R.L., Ellert, B.H. and Smith, E.G. 

(2003). The fate of nitrogen in agroecosystems: An illustration using Canadian estimates. Nutrient 

Cycling in Agroecosystems, 67: 85-102. 

NRCS (2006). Plant nutrient content database. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U. S. Dept. of 

Agriculture. Online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/nutrient/tbb1.html. 

9. Soyabean 

NRCS (2006). Plant nutrient content database. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U. S. Dept. of 

Agriculture. Online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/nutrient/tbb1.html. 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.48 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

10. Dry bean 

Janzen, H.H., Beauchemin, K.A., Bruinsma, Y., Campbell, C.A., Desjardins, R.L., Ellert, B.H. and Smith, E.G. 

(2003). The fate of nitrogen in agroecosystems: An illustration using Canadian estimates. Nutrient 

Cycling in Agroecosystems, 67: 85-102. 

11. Potato 

Heard, J. (2004). Nutrient accumulation and partitioning by potatoes in Manitoba. Proc. of 47th Annual 

Manitoba Society of Soil Science Meeting. Online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/msss/ 

2004/mss600.pdf. 

Janzen, H.H., Beauchemin, K.A., Bruinsma, Y., Campbell, C.A., Desjardins, R.L., Ellert, B.H. and Smith, E.G. 

(2003). The fate of nitrogen in agroecosystems: An illustration using Canadian estimates. Nutrient 

Cycling in Agroecosystems, 67: 85-102. 

Thatcher, L.E. and Willard, C.J. (1962). Crop rotation and soil productivity. Ohio Agricultural Experiment 

Station Res. Bull. 907. Ohio State University. 

Zvomuya, F., Rosen, C.J., Russelle, M.P. and Gupta, S.C. (2003). Nitrate leaching and nitrogen recovery 

following application of polyolefin-coated urea to potato. Journal of Environmental Quality, 32: 480-489. 

12. Peanut 

NRCS (2006). Plant nutrient content database. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U. S. Dept. of 

Agriculture. Online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/nutrient/tbb1.html. 

13. Alfalfa 

NRCS (2006). Plant nutrient content database. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U. S. Dept. of 

Agriculture. Online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/nutrient/tbb1.html. 

Schmidt, W.H., Myers, D.K. and Van Keuren, R.W. (2001).Values of legumes for plowdown nitrogen. 

Extension Fact Sheet AGF-111-01. Ohio State University Extension. Online at: 

http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0111.html. 

Walley, F.L., Tomm, G.O., Matus, A., Slinkard, A.E. and van Kessel, C. (1996). Allocation and cycling of 

nitrogen in an alfalfa-bromegrass sward. Agronomy Journal, 88: 834-843. 

14. Non-legume hay 

NRCS (2006). Plant nutrient content database. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U. S. Dept. of 

Agriculture. Online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/nutrient/tbb1.html. 

IV. Ratio of below-ground residues to above-ground biomass 

1. Maize 

Bray, J.R. (1963). Root production and the estimation of net productivity. Can. J. Bot. 41:65-72. 

Bolinder, M.A., Angers, D.A., Giroux, M. and Laverdiere, M.R. (1999). Estimating C inputs retained as soil 

organic matter from corn (Zea Mays L.). Plant and Soil 215:85-91. 

Buyanovsky, G.A. and Wagner, G.H. (1986). Post-harvest residue input to cropland. Plant and Soil 93:57-65. 

Eghball, B. and Maranville, J.W. (1993). Root development and nitrogen influx of corn genotypes grown under 

combined drought and nitrogen stresses. Agron. J. 85:147-152. 

Follett, R.F., Allmaras, R.R. and Reichman, G.A. (1974). Distribution of corn roots in sandy soil with a 

declining water table. Agron. J. 66:288-292. 

Huggins, D.R., and Fuchs, D.J. (1997). Long-term N management effects on corn yield and soil C of an aquic 

haplustoll in Minnesota. In Soil Organic Matter In Temperate Agroecosystems. E.A. Paul, K. Paustian, 

E.T. Elliott, and V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Liang, B.C., Wang, X.L. and Ma, B.L. (2002). Maize root-induced change to soil organic pool. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 

J. 66:845-847. 

Qian, J.H., Doran, J.W. and Walters, D.T. (1997). Maize plant contributions to root zone available carbon and 

microbial transformations of nitrogen. Soil Biol. Biochem. 29:1451-1462. 

Shank, D.B. (1943). Top-root ratios of inbred and hybred maize. J. Am. Soc. Agron., pp. 976-986. 

Tran, T.S. and Giroux, M. (1998). Fate of 15N-labelled fertilizer applied to corn grown on different soil types. 

Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 78: 597-605. 
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.49 

Triplett, G.B. Jr. and Mannering, J.V. (1978). Crop residue management in crop rotation and multiple cropping 

systems. Chapter 11 in Crop Residue Management Systems. Am. Soc. Agron. Spec. Pub. No. 31. 

Yiridoe, E.K., Voroney, R.P. and Weersink, A. (1997). Impact of alternative farm management practices on 

nitrogen pollution of groundwater: Evaluation and application of CENTURY Model. J. Environ. Qual. 

26:1255-1263. 

2. Wheat 

Barraclough, P.B. (1984). The growth and activity of winter wheat roots in the field: root growth of high 

yielding crops in relation to shoot growth. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 103:439-442. 

Barraclough, P.B. and Leigh, R.A. (1984). The growth and activity of winter wheat roots in the field: the effect 

of sowing date and soil type on root growth of high yielding crops. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 103:59-74. 

Bolinder, M.A., Angers, D.A. and Dubuc, J.P. (1997). Estimating shoot to root ratios and annual carbon inputs in 

soils for cereal crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63:61-67. 

Bray, J.R. (1963). Root production and the estimation of net productivity. Can. J. Bot. 41:65-72. 

Buyanovsky, G.A. and Wagner, G.H. (1986). Post-harvest residue input to cropland. Plant and Soil 93:57-65. 

Campbell, C.A. and de Jong, R. (2001). Root-to-straw ratios – influence of moisture and rate of N fertilizer. Can. 

J. Soil Sci., 81: 39-43. 

Campbell, C.A. and Zentner, R.P. (1997). Crop production and soil orgaqnic matter in long-term crop rotations 

in the semi-arid Northern Great Plains of Canada. In: Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. 

E.A. Paul. K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott, and C.V. Cole (eds.). CRC Press, Inc. 

Gregory, P.J., McGowan, M., Biscoe, P.V. and Hunter, B. (1978). Water relations of winter wheat. 1.Growth of 

the root system. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 91:91-102. 

Pederson, G.A., Brink, G.E. and Fairbrother, T.E. (2002). Nutrient uptake in plant parts of sixteen forages 

fertilized with poultry litter: Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, copper, and zinc. Agron. J. 94:895-904. 

Siddique, K.H.M., Belford, R.K. and Tennant, D. (1990). Root:shoot ratios of old and modern, tall and semidwarf wheats in a mediterranean environment. Plant and Soil 121:89-98. 

Slobodian, N., Van Rees, K. and Pennock, D. (2002). Cultivation-induced effects on below-ground biomass and 

organic carbon. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:924-930. 

Triplett Jr., G.B. and Mannering, J.V. (1978). Crop residue management in crop rotation and multiple cropping 

systems. Chapter 11 in Crop Residue Management Systems. Am. Soc. Agron. Spec. Pub. No. 31. 

Weir, A.H. and Barraclough, P.B. (1986). The effect of drought on the root growth of winter wheat and on its 

uptake from deep loam. Soil Use And Management 2:91-96. 

3. Rice 

Cassman, K. G. (personal communication 2002) Agron. Dept, U. NE. 

Khokhar, M.F.K. and Pandey, H.N. (1976). Biomass, productivity and growth analysis of two varieties of paddy. 

Trop. Ecol. 17:125-131. 

Shinano, T., Osaka, M., Yamada, S. and Tadano, T. (1994). Comparison of root growth and nitrogen absorbing 

ability between Gramineae and Leguminosae during the vegetative stage. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 40:485-495. 

Turner, F.T. and McCauley, G.N. (1983). Rice. In: Crop – Water Relations. I.D.Teare and M.M. Peet (eds.). 

John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 308-350. 

4. Barley 

Bolinder, M.A., Angers, D.A. and Dubuc, J.P. (1997). Estimating shoot to root ratios and annual carbon inputs in 

soils for cereal crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63:61-67. 

Bray, J.R. (1963). Root production and the estimation of net productivity. Can. J. Bot. 41:65-72. 

Gregory, P.J. and Atwell, B.J. (1991). The fate of carbon in pulse-labeled crops of barley and wheat. Plant and 

Soil 136:205-213. 

Gregory, P.J., Palta, J.A. and Batts, G.R. (1997). Root systems and root:mass ratio – carbon allocation under 

current and projected atmospheric conditions in arable crops. 

Hansson, A., Andren, O., Bostrom, U., Clarholm, M., Lagerlof, J., Lindberg, T., Paustian, K., Pettersson, R. and 

Sohlenius, B. (1989). Chapter 4. Structure of the agroecosystem. In: Andren O., Lindberg T., Paustian K., 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.50 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

and Rosswall T. (eds.). Ecology of arable land – organisms, carbon and nitrogen cycling. Ecol. Bull. 

(Copenhagen) 40:41-83. 

Heen, A. (1981). Root growth, transpiration and leaf-firing during water stress in barley: Breeding implications 

for drought resistance. In: Barley Genetics IV. Proceedings of the Fourth International Barley Genetics 

Symposium. Edinburgh Univ. Press. 

Shank, D.B. (1943). Top-root ratios of inbred and hybred maize. J. Am. Soc. Agron., pp. 976-986. 

Siddique, K.H.M., Belford, R.K. and Tennant, D. (1990). Root:shoot ratios of old and modern, tall and semidwarf wheats in a mediterranean environment. Plant and Soil 121:89-98. 

Watson, D.J., Thorne, G.N. and French, S.A.W. (1958). Physiological causes of differences in grain yield 

between varieties of barley. Annals of Botany 87:321-352. 

Xu, J.G. and Juma, N.G. (1992). Above- and below-ground net primary production of four barley (Hordeum 

vulgare L.) cultivars in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72:1131-1140. 

5. Oats 

Bolinder, M.A., Angers, D.A. and Dubuc, J.P. (1997). Estimating shoot to root ratios and annual carbon inputs in 

soils for cereal crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63:61-67. 

Pederson, G.A., Brink, G.E. and Fairbrother, T.E. (2002). Nutrient uptake in plant parts of sixteen forages 

fertilized with poultry litter: Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, copper, and zinc. Agron. J. 94:895-904. 

6. Millet 

No data on millet available at this time. 

7. Sorghum 

No data on sorghum available at this time. 

8. Rye 

No data on rye available at this time. 

9. Soyabean 

Allmaras, R.R., Nelson, W.W. and Voorhees, W.B. (1975). Soybean and corn rooting in Southwestern 

Minnesota: II. Root distributions and related water flow. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 39:771-777. 

Buyanovsky, G.A. and Wagner, G.H. (1986). Post-harvest residue input to cropland. Plant and Soil 93:57-65. 

Heatherly, L.G. (1980). Effect of upper-profile soil water potential on soybean root and shoot relationships. 

Field Crops Research, 3:165-171. 

Mayaki, W.C., Teare, I.D. and Stone, L.R. (1976). Top and root growth of irrigated and nonirrigated soybeans. 

Crop Sci. 16:92-94. 

Shinano, T., Osaki, M., Yamada, S. and Tadano, T. (1994). Comparison of root growth and nitrogen absorbing 

ability between Gramineae and Leguminosae during the vegetative stage. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 40:485-495. 

Taylor, H.M., Mason, W.K., Bennie, A.T.P. and House, H.R. (1982). Responses of soybeans to two row 

spacings and two soil water levels. I. An analysis of biomass accumulation, canopy development, solar 

radiation interception and components of seed yield. Field Crops Research, 5: 1-14. 

10. Dry bean 

No data on dry beans available at this time. 

11. Potato 

Vangessel, M.J. and Renner, K.A. (1990). Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and barnyardgrass 

(Echinochloa crus-galli) interference in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Science 38:338-343. 

12. Peanut 

No data on peanuts available at this time. 

13. Alfalfa 

Paustian, K., Andren, O., Clarholm, M., Hansson, A.C., Johansson, G., Lagerlof, J., Lindberg, T., Pettersson, R. 

and Sohlenius, B. (1990). Carbon and nitrogen budgets of four agro-ecosystems with annual and 

perennial crops, with and without fertilization. J. Appl. Ecol. 27:60-84. 
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.51 

14. Non-legume hay 

Paustian, K., Andren, O., Clarholm, M., Hansson, A.C., Johansson, G., Lagerlof, J., Lindberg, T., Pettersson, R. 

and Sohlenius, B. (1990). Carbon and nitrogen budgets of four agro-ecosystems with annual and 

perennial crops, with and without fertilization. J. Appl. Ecol. 27:60-84. 

V. N content of below-ground residues 

1. Maize 

Sanchez, J.E., Paul, E.A., Willson, T.C., Smeenk, J. and Harwood, R.R. (2002). Corn root effects on the 

nitrogen-supplying capacity of a conditioned soil. Agron. J. 94:391-396. 

Subedi, K.D. and Ma, B.L. (2005). Nitrogen uptake and partitioning in stay-green and leafy-maize hybrids. 

Crop Sci. 45:740-747. 

Tran, T.S. and Giroux, M. (1998). Fate of 15N-labelled fertilizer applied to corn grown on different soil types. 

Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 78: 597-605. 

2. Wheat 

Campbell, C.A., Cameron, D.R., Nicholaichuk, W. and Davidson, H.R. (1977). Effects of fertilizer N and soil 

moisture on growth, N content, and moisture use by spring wheat. Can. J. Soil Sci. 57:289-310. 

Pederson, G.A., Brink, G.E. and Fairbrother, T.E. (2002). Nutrient uptake in plant parts of sixteen forages 

fertilized with poultry litter: Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, copper, and zinc. Agron. J. 94:895-904. 

3. Rice 

No data on rice available at this time. 

4. Barley 

Dev, G. and Rennie, D.A. (1979). Isotope studies on the comparative efficiency of nitrogenous sources. Aust. J. 

Soil Res. 17: 155-162. 

Haugen-Kozyra, K., Juma, N.G. and Nyborg, M. (1993). Nitrogen partitioning and cycling in barley-soil systems 

under conventional and zero tillage in central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 73: 183-196. 

5. Oats 

Pederson, G.A., Brink, G.E. and Fairbrother, T.E. (2002). Nutrient uptake in plant parts of sixteen forages 

fertilized with poultry litter: Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, copper, and zinc. Agron. J. 94:895-904. 

6. Millet 

No data on millet available at this time. 

7. Sorghum 

Cueto-Wong, J.A., Guldan, S.J., Lindemann, W.C. and Remmenga, M.D. (2001). Nitrogen recovery from 15Nlabeled green manures: I. Recovery by forage sorghum and soil one season after green manure 

incorporation. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 17:27-42. 

8. Rye 

Pederson, G.A., Brink, G.E. and Fairbrother, T.E. (2002). Nutrient uptake in plant parts of sixteen forages 

fertilized with poultry litter: Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, copper, and zinc. Agron. J. 94:895-904. 

9. Soyabean 

Thatcher, L.E. (1925). The soybean in Ohio. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. 384. 

10. Dry bean 

Janzen, H.H., Beauchemin, K.A., Bruinsma, Y., Campbell, C.A., Desjardins, R.L., Ellert, B.H. and Smith, E.G. 

(2003). The fate of nitrogen in agroecosystems: An illustration using Canadian estimates. Nutrient 

Cycling in Agroecosystems, 67: 85-102. 

11. Potato 

Lander, C.H., Moffitt, D. and Alt, K. (1998). Nutrients available from livestock manure relative to crop growth 

requirements. Resource Assessment and Strategic Planning Working paper 98-1. USDA Natural Resource 

Conservation Service. http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/pubs/nlweb.html 

Zvomuya, F., Rosen, C.J., Russelle, M.P. and Gupta, S.C. (2003). Nitrate leaching and nitrogen recovery 

following application of polyolefin-coated urea to potato. Journal of Environmental Quality, 32: 480-489. 

12. Peanut 

No data on peanuts available at this time. 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.52 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

13. Alfalfa 

Baron, V., Young, D.Y. and Ullmann, C. (2001). Can pasture slow down global warming? Western Forage/Beef 

Group, 5: 3-6. Online at: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/newslett.nsf/all/wfbg38. 

Bowren, K.E., Cooke, D.A. and Downey, R.K. (1969). Yield of dry matter and nitrogen from tops and roots of 

sweetclover, alfalfa, and red clover at five stages of growth. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 49: 61-

69. 

Pederson, G.A., Brink, G.E. and Fairbrother, T.E. (2002). Nutrient uptake in plant parts of sixteen forages 

fertilized with poultry litter: Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, copper, and zinc. Agron. J. 94:895-904. 

Schmidt, W.H., Myers, D.K. and Van Keuren, R.W. (2001).Values of legumes for plowdown nitrogen. 

Extension Fact Sheet AGF-111-01. Ohio State University Extension. Online at: 

http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0111.html. 

Walley, F.L., Tomm, G.O., Matus, A., Slinkard, A.E. and van Kessel, C. (1996). Allocation and cycling of 

nitrogen in an alfalfa-bromegrass sward. Agronomy Journal, 88: 834-843. 

14. Non-legume hay 

Campbell, C.A., Biederbeck, V.O., Zentner, R.P. and Lafond, G.P. (1991). Effect of crop rotations and cultural 

practices on soil organic matter, microbial biomass and respiration in a thin Black Chernozemic soil. 

Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 71: 363-376. 

Christian, J.M. and Wilson, S.D. (1999). Long-term ecosystem impacts of an introduced grass in the Northern 

Great Plains. Ecology, 80: 2397-2407. 

Pederson, G.A., Brink, G.E. and Fairbrother, T.E. (2002). Nutrient uptake in plant parts of sixteen forages 

fertilized with poultry litter: Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, copper, and zinc. Agron. J. 94:895-904. 

Schmidt, W.H., Myers, D.K. and Van Keuren, R.W. (2001).Values of legumes for plowdown nitrogen. 

Extension Fact Sheet AGF-111-01. Ohio State University Extension. Online at: 

http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0111.html. 

Walley, F.L., Tomm, G.O., Matus, A., Slinkard, A.E. and van Kessel, C. (1996). Allocation and cycling of 

nitrogen in an alfalfa-bromegrass sward. Agronomy Journal, 88: 834-843. 
 Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application 

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 11.53 

References 

Aitkenhead-Peterson, J.A., Alexander, J.E. and Clair, T.A. (2005). Disssolved organic carbon and dissolved 

organic nitrogen export from forested watersheds in Nova Scotia: Identifying controlling factors. Global 

Biogeochemical Cycles, 19, GB4016, doi:10.10.1029/2004GB002438. 

Akiyama, H., Yagi, K. and Yan, X. (2005). Direct N2O emission from rice paddy fields: Summary of available 

data. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles, 19(1), art. no. GB1005. 

Alm, J., Saarnio, S., Nykanen, H., Silvola, J. and Martikainen, P.J. (1999). Winter CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes on 

some natural and drained boreal peatlands. Biogeochem. 44, 163-186. 

Bouwman, A.F. (1996). Direct emissions of nitrous oxide from agricultural soils. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst., 46, 

53-70. 

Bouwman, A.F., Boumans, L.J.M. and Batjes, N.H. (2002a). Emissions of N2O and NO from fertilised fields: 

Summary of available measurement data. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles, 16(4), art. no. 1058. 

Bouwman, A.F., Boumans, L.J.M. and Batjes, N.H. (2002b). Modeling global annual N2O and NO emissions 

from fertilised fields. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles, 16(4), art. no. 1080. 

Brumme, R., Borken, W. and Finke, S. (1999). Hierarchical control on nitrous oxide emission in forest 

ecosystems. Global Biochem. Cycles 13, 1137–1148. 

Butterbach-Bahl, K., Gasche, R., Breuer, L. And Papen, H. (1997). Fluxes of NO and N2O from temperate forest 

soils: impact of forest type, N deposition and of liming on the NO and N2O emissions. Nutr. Cycl. 

Agroecosyst. 48, 79–90. 

Clough, T., Bertram, J.E., Sherlock, R.R., Leonard, R.L. and Nowicki, B.L. (2006). Comparison of measured 

and EF5-r-derived N2O fluxes from a spring-fed river. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 477-488. 

Corre, M.D., Pennock, D.J., van Kessel, C., and Elliott, D.K. (1999). Estimation of annual nitrous oxide 

emissions from a transitional grassland-forest region in Saskatchewan, Canada. Biogeochem. 44, 29–49. 

Davies, M.G., Smith, K.A. and Vinten, A.J.A. (2001). The mineralisation and fate of N following ploughing of 

grass and grass-clover swards. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 33, 423-434. 

de Klein, C.A.M. (2004). Review of the N2O emission factor for excreta deposited by grazing animals (EF3PRP). 

Paper prepared as part of the 2006 Revised Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Inventories of IPCC. 

Denier van der Gon, H. and Bleeker, A. (2005). Indirect N2O emission due to atmospheric N deposition for the 

Netherlands. Atmos. Environ. 39, 5827-5838. 

Dong, L.F., Nedwell, D.B., Colbeck, I. and Finch, J. (2004). Nitrous oxide emission from some English and 

Welsh rivers and estuaries. Water Air Soil Pollution: Focus 4, 127-134. 

FAO (1998). World Reference Base for Soil Resources. World Soil Resources Reports 84. FAO, Rome. 88pp. 

(ISBN 92-5-104141-5). 

Garten, C.T., Cooper, L.W., Post, W.M. and Hanson, P.J. (2000). Climate controls on forest soil C isotope ratios 

in the southern Appalachian mountains. Ecology, 81, 1108-1119. 

Hiscock, K.M., Bateman, A.S., Fukada, T. and Dennis, P.F. (2002). The concentration and distribution of 

groundwater N2O in the Chalk aquifer of eastern England. In: Van Ham, J., Baede, A.P.M., Guicherit, R. 

and Williams-Jacobse, J.G.F.M. (eds.), Proc. 3rd Internat. Symp. Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases, 

Maastricht, The Netherlands, 185-190. 

Hiscock, K.M., Bateman, A.S., Muhlherr, I.H., Fukada, T. and Dennis, P.F. (2003). Indirect emissions of nitrous 

oxide from regional aquifers in the United Kingdom. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37, 3507-3512.

IPCC (1997). Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Inventories. Houghton J.T., Meira Filho 

L.G., Lim B., Tréanton K., Mamaty I., Bonduki Y., Griggs D.J. Callander B.A. (Eds). Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC/OECD/IEA, Paris, France. 

IPCC (2000). Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. 

Penman J., Kruger D., Galbally I., Hiraishi T., Nyenzi B., Emmanuel S., Buendia L., Hoppaus R., 

Martinsen T., Meijer J., Miwa K., Tanabe K. (Eds). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 

IPCC/OECD/IEA/IGES, Hayama, Japan. 

IPCC (2003). Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Penman J., Gytarsky M., 

Hiraishi T., Krug, T., Kruger D., Pipatti R., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T., Tanabe K., Wagner F. 

(Eds).Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC/IGES, Hayama, Japan. 
Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

11.54 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

John, B., Yamashita, T., Ludwig, B. and Flessa, H. (2005). Storage of organic carbon in aggregate and density 

fractions of silty soils under different types of land use. Geoderma, 128, 63-79. 

Klemedtsson, L., Kasimir Klemedtsson, A., Escala, M. and Kulmala, A. (1999). Inventory of N2O emission from 

farmed European peatlands. In: Freibauer, A. and Kaltschmitt, M. (eds.), Approaches to Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories of Biogenic Sources in Agriculture, Proc. Workshop at Lökeberg, Sweden, 9-10 July 1998, 

pp. 79-91. 

Klemedtsson, L., Weslien, P., Arnold, K., Agren, G., Nilsson, M. and Hanell, B. (2002). Greenhouse gas 

emissionsfrom drained forests in Sweden. In: Olsson M. (ed.) Land-use strategies for reckoning net 

greenhouse gas emissions. Mistra Programme: Progress report 1999 – 2002. Swedish Univ. Agric. 

Sciences, Uppsala: pp. 44-67. 

Lobe, I., Amelung, W. and Du Preez, C.C. (2001). Losses of carbon and nitrogen with prolonged arable cropping 

from sandy soils of the South African Highveld. European Journal of Soil Science, 52, 93-101. 

Laine, J., Silvola, J., Tolonen, K., Alm, J., Nykanen, H., Vasander, H., Sallantaus, T., Savolainen, I., Sinisalo, J., 

and Martikainen, P.J. (1996). Effect of water-level drawdown on global climatic warming – northern 

peatlands. Ambio 25, 179-184. 

Martikainen, P.J., Nykanen, H., Alm, J., and Silvola, J. (1995). Change in fluxes of carbon dioxide, methane and 

nitrous oxide due to forest drainage of mire sites of different trophy. Plant Soil 169, 571-577. 

Minkkinen, K., Korhonen, K., Savolainen, I. and Laine, J. (2002). Carbon balance and radiative forcing of 

Finnish peatlands 1900-2100: the impact of forestry drainage. Glob. Change Biol. 8, 785-799. 

Novoa, R. and Tejeda, H.R. (2006) Evaluation of the N2O emissions from N in plant residues as affected by 

environmental and management factors. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. (in press). 

Reay, D.S., Smith, K.A. and Edwards A.C. (2004). Nitrous oxide in agricultural drainage waters following field 

fertilisation. Water Air Soil Pollution: Focus, 4, 437-451. 

Reay, D., Smith, K.A., Edwards, A.C., Hiscock, K.M., Dong, L.F. and Nedwell, D. (2005). Indirect nitrous oxide 

emissions: revised emission factors. Environ. Sciences, 2, 153-158. 

Regina, K., Nykänen, H., Silvola, J. and Martikainen, P.J. (1996). Nitrous oxide production in boreal peatlands 

of different hydrology and nutrient status. In: Northern peatlands in global climatic change. Proc. Internat. 

Workshop, Academy of Finland, Hyytiälä: pp. 158-166. 

Robertson, G.P. and Grace, P.R. (2004). Greenhouse gas fluxes in tropical and temperate agriculture: the need 

for a full-cost accounting of global warming potentials. Environ. Develop. Sustain. 6, 51-63. 

Rochette, P. and Janzen, H.H. (2005). Towards a revised coefficient for estimating N2O emissions from legumes. 

Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst., 73, 171-179. 

Snowdon, P., Ryan, P. and Raison, J. (2005). Review of C:N ratios in vegetation, litter and soil under Australian 

native forests and plantations. National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 45, Australian 

Greenhouse Office, Canberra. 

Sawamoto, T., Nakajima, Y., Kasuya, M., Tsuruta, H. and Yagi, K. (2005). Evaluation of emission factors for 

indirect N2O emission due to nitrogen leaching in agro-ecosystems. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32(3), 

doi:10.1029/2004GL021625. 

Smith, K.A.and Conen, F. (2004). Impacts of land management on fluxes of trace greenhouse gases. Soil Use 

Manage., 20, 255-263. 

Stehfest, E. and Bouwman, L. (2006). N2O and NO emission from agricultural fields and soils under natural 

vegetation: summarizing available measurement data and modeling of global annual emissions. Nutr. 

Cycl. Agroecosyst. 74, 207-228. 

van der Weerden, T.J., Sherlock, R.R., Williams, P.H. and Cameron, K.C. (1999). Nitrous oxide emissions and 

methane oxidation by soil following cultivation of two different leguminous pastures. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 

30, 52-60. 

 West, T.O. and McBride, A.C. (2005). The contribution of agricultural lime to carbon dioxide emission in the 

United States: dissolution, transport, and net emissions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 108, 145-154.