Vol.: (0123456789) 1 3 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-023-10294-w ORIGINAL ARTICLE Canola productivity and carbon footprint under different cropping systems in eastern Canada Bao‑Luo Ma  · Chang Liang · Aruna Herath · C. D. Caldwell · Donald L. Smith Received: 19 May 2022 / Accepted: 14 June 2023 / Published online: 28 June 2023 © Crown 2023 Abstract Diversified crop rotation with an appro- priate sequence may be a promising strategy for increasing crop productivity while reducing green- house gas emissions (GHGs) and lowering carbon (C) footprint for more sustainable agricultural sys- tems. The objectives of this study were to (i) assess the agronomic performance and C footprint of canola (Brassica napus L.) production in different cropping systems, and (ii) better understand how canola could be adapted to existing cropping systems in eastern Canada. A four-year canola-based phase rotation study, including maize (Zea mays L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), and soybean (Glycine max L.), started in 2011 and continued for two cycles in Ottawa, ON; Montreal, QC; and Canning, NS. It was found that, compared to continuous monoculture (canola, maize or wheat), diversified cropping systems increased crop yields by an average of 32% and reduced the C footprint of all rotations by 33%, except under severe heat and drought conditions. The effect of rotation on yield and C footprint of canola production varied significantly among site-years. At Ottawa, the can- ola following soybean (SC) had 12% higher canola yield than monoculture canola (CC), 5 and 8% higher canola yield than canola following wheat (WC) or maize (MC). At Montreal, canola yield ranked as MC > SC > WC > CC. At Canning, the highest can- ola yield was in WC (21%) and SC (13%). Overall, most SC rotations had the lowest C footprint, and CC cropping had the highest C footprint, with only a few exceptions. Regardless of the cropping system, canola required more N input and was high in oil and protein in the harvested product, and produced the highest C footprint, while soybean had the lowest C footprint at all three sites. Our findings indicate that a diver- sified cropping system with canola production fol- lowing soybean significantly improved canola yield while lowering the C footprint. However, profitable and sustainable canola production in eastern Canada is threatened by climate change-induced drought and heat stress. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10705- 023- 10294-w. B.-L. Ma (*) · A. Herath  Ottawa Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON K1A 0C6, Canada e-mail: baoluo.ma@agr.gc.ca C. Liang  Pollutant Inventories and Reporting Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, PVMA, 5th Floor, 351 St-Joseph Blvd., Gatineau, QC K1A 0H3, Canada C. D. Caldwell  Department of Plant, Food, and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Dalhousie University, Truro, NS B2N 5E3, Canada D. L. Smith  Department of Plant Science, McGill University, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9, Canada http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10705-023-10294-w&domain=pdf http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8328-9481 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-023-10294-w https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-023-10294-w 192 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) Keywords Canola · Crop rotation · Carbon footprint · Greenhouse gas emission intensity · Sustainable production Introduction Climate change is attributed to increasing levels of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), with agricultural activities accounting for nearly 13.5% of the total GHG emissions (Montzka et  al. 2011), making it a significant contributor (IPCC 2006). In Canada, approximately 10% of total GHGs in 2019 came from agriculture, including enteric fer- mentation (24 Mt), crop production (27 Mt), manure management (8  Mt), and on-farm fuel use (14  Mt), totaling 73  Mt of CO2-equivalent (CO2-eq) GHGs (ECCC, 2021). With regard to crop production and other agricultural activities, a large portion of the total GHG emissions occurs as soil N2O (Janzen et al. 2006), which has about 300 times greater warming potential than CO2 (Forster et  al. 2007). The N2O emissions from cultivated soils account for 3% of Canada’s anthropogenic GHG sources (ECCC 2021), with a large portion of N2O coming from nitrogen fertilizers (N) associated with crop production (Gan et al. 2012). As a non-legume cash crop, canola requires a rela- tively larger quantity of N fertilizer than small-grain cereals and other oilseed crops (Ma and Herath 2016), and in turn canola crop production leads to higher GHG emissions. Hence, among the major field-crops grown in Canada, canola has been found to be the largest emitter of GHGs per unit of grain produced (Dyer et al. 2010; Gan et al. 2011a), because as a non- legume crop, it requires a lot of fertilizer N to manu- facture the more than 65% oil plus protein in its seeds (Ma and Herath 2016). However, of all crops pro- duced in short-growing season regions, canola offers the highest cash value per hectare, contributes signifi- cantly to farm profitability, and serves as a renewable feedstock for biofuel production (Blackshaw et  al. 2011). It is harvested earlier than maize and soybean and may provide an opportunity for cover crops in regions with a shorter growing season, such as east- ern Canada (Ma et al. 2022). Therefore, it is critical to develop beneficial management practices, to maxi- mize crop productivity while minimizing GHG emis- sions and C footprint from canola crop production. Canola is a desirable feedstock for biodiesel production, given its low saturated fats and 10% oxygen (by weight), which enhances combustion efficiency, especially under cold weather condi- tions (Blackshaw et al. 2011). Demand for canola is expected to increase rapidly as a result of forthcom- ing Clean Fuel Standards (CFS) legislation; diesel fuel currently contains at least 2% biofuel and is expected to rise to 8 to 11% by 2030, with an inten- sified demand for GHG reductions in Canada. Fur- thermore, global demand for canola oil is expected to expand with the increase in health-conscious and affluent middle-class consumers in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and other rapidly developing countries (OECD 2021). Potential for expanding canola production in eastern Canada is also promising as the Quebec Canola and Soybean Crushing and Oil Refinery Plant has now come on stream (Better Farming 2011; Ma et al. 2016). Profitable opportunities to increase canola pro- duction in eastern Canada require improved agro- nomic practices developed to suit site-specific weather and agronomic conditions (Wen et  al. 2021). A quantitative assessment of GHG emissions and C footprint associated with canola production in eastern Canada is also required to identify site- specific and climate-smart crop management prac- tices to minimize undue harm from GHGs. Carbon footprint is an internationally recognized tool for quantifying the intensity of GHGs from different agricultural activities for improving environmental performance (Gan et al. 2011a; Liang et al. 2020). Research has demonstrated that a significant por- tion of agricultural GHG emissions can be miti- gated by adopting diversified cropping systems with a beneficial crop sequence, which generally includes cereals, oil seed crops, and legume crops in well-defined crop rotation sequences (Gan et  al. 2011b). Diversified cropping systems can increase energy use efficiency (Zentner et al. 2004), improve soil organic matter and nutrient availability (Deen et al. 2015), and decrease pest infestation (Krupin- sky et al. 2002). Including cover crops has proven to be an effective way to diversify crop rotations and improve environmental sustainability (Quintarelli et  al. 2022). Therefore, a diversified cropping sys- tem, including legume crops, can not only improve crop productivity, but also reduce environmental risks by reducing the use of synthetic fertilizers and 193Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) significantly lowering the C footprint (Gan et  al. 2011b; Liang et al. 2016). However, limited information is available in the existing literature on the agronomic performance and C footprint of canola grown in crop rotations in eastern Canada. The type of crop rotation has a sig- nificant effect on yield and quality of canola in addi- tion to C footprint. A major challenge for expansion of canola crop production in eastern Canada is the lack of knowledge as to how canola will fit into the existing maize-soybean dominated cropping systems in Ontario and Quebec and potato-grain in the Mari- times. The inherent difficulty of designing long-term crop rotation trials with several cropping cycles could be a potential reason for lack of such knowledge. Identification of canola-based crop rotations to fit specific ecozones in eastern Canada is vital to reduce the canola C footprint and to lower income risk for rainfed cash crop production in the region. Therefore, we conducted a four-year canola-based crop rotation with two cycles (2011–2018) to (i) determine the agronomic performance and C footprint of canola (Brassica napus L.) production in different cropping systems, and (ii) better understand how canola could be adapted to existing cropping systems in eastern Canada. In this study, we hypothesized that rotational canola would serve as a viable crop in maize-soybean based cropping systems by increasing canola produc- tivity, while reducing the system-level C footprint, compared to continuous canola monoculture. The overall goal of this study was to establish an ecozone- specific and environmentally smart cropping system for profitable and sustainable canola crop production in eastern Canada. Materials and methods Site descriptions This phase-rotation study started in 2011 with canola, maize, wheat and soybean, and ran for two cycles until 2018. The test locations included: the Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Ontario (45° 23ʹ N, 75° 43ʹ W), referred to as Ottawa site; Macdonald Cam- pus of McGill University in Ste. Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec (45° 25ʹ N, 73° 56ʹ W), identified as Montreal site; and Lyndhurst Farms Ltd. in Canning, Nova Sco- tia (45° 01ʹ N, 64° 26ʹ W), identified as Canning site. Due to site issues, no experiments were conducted at the Montreal and Canning sites in 2018. In 2016, due to severe damage by flea beetles, canola crops failed to reach maturity at Montreal. Growing season pre- cipitation and air temperature at each location were recorded by an on-site weather station or the nearest official weather station. Agro-climatic conditions at these sites ranged from northern temperate at Ottawa to humid continental climate at Canning. The sea- sonal daily mean temperature, precipitation and soil characteristics of these sites are described in detail by Ma et  al. (2020) and Wen et  al. (2021). Topsoil (0–30 cm depth) samples were analyzed prior to the start of the experiment and results are presented in Table 1. Experimental design and field management The field experiment was arranged in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replica- tions at each site. A popular standard canola hybrid (InVigor 5440, LL) was used at all sites, while dif- ferent varieties of maize, soybean and wheat were used at each site; all prevalent in the specific prov- inces. The crops in the rotation trial were coded as canola (C), maize (M), wheat (W), and soybean (S), such as, CSMW indicating, canola as a 1st year crop, followed by soybean in the 2nd year, maize in the 3rd year and wheat in the 4th year during the first cycle, and repeated the same sequence from 2015 to 2018. These same treatment combinations were used in the same plots in both cycles of the study. Two letters stand for the current crop follow- ing the preceding crop. For example, SC refers to canola following soybean, WC, canola following Table 1 Characterization of the experimental sites and soil (0–30 cm depth) basic information in the initial year 2011 Soil particle size was analyzed by Hydrometer method and classified soil texture according to the triangle (https:// nowlin. css. msu. edu/ softw are/ trian gle_ form. html). Soil organic matter was measured by dry combustion method Site Preceding crop Soil texture Soil organic matter (g kg−1) Soil pH Ottawa Maize Sandy loam 31 6.8 Montreal Maize Clay loam 22 5.4 Canning Wheat Sandy loam 31 6.3 https://nowlin.css.msu.edu/software/triangle_form.html https://nowlin.css.msu.edu/software/triangle_form.html 194 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) wheat, MC, canola following maize, and CC stands for continuous canola monocropping. Both phases of the crop existed each year. For example, SC and CS, WC and CW, or MC and CM appeared simul- taneously at each site every year to account for annual environmental influence on crop rotation effects (Ma et  al. 2003), thereby total GHG emis- sions and C footprint could be estimated annu- ally (Ma et  al. 2012). Due to a limitation of field space, there were no continuous soybean (SSSS) plots, no wheat following soybeans (SW) plots, and no maize following canola (CM) plots. Therefore, monoculture (MONO) represented a continuous crop of canola (CCCC), maize (MMMM) or wheat (WWWW), while crop rotation (Rot) referred to as crop production in which all crops are rotated. To compare continuous canola monoculture (CC) with Rot canola, rotational canola here referred to canola produced after a previous maize, soybean or wheat crop. Plot size varied by location, each plot consisted of 32–34 rows of canola, soybean or wheat, with 19 cm row spacing and 15–20 m long apart. Row spacing was 76  cm for maize. Nitro- gen, in the form of urea (46–0-0) was broadcasted at the rate of 100 kg N  ha−1 only for maize, wheat and canola plots, at preplant in each year, except that at Canning, split application of N fertilizer (55  kg  N  ha−1 at planting and 45  kg  N  ha−1 at 6-leaf stage) was used for canola. The canola plots received 20 kg S  ha−1 as ammonium sulphate (21- 0-0 with 24% S) and 2  kg B ha−1 in the form of Alpine Boron (10%), both applied at preplant. Dur- ing the V6 stage in late June, more N in the form of urea-ammonium nitrate (UAN) (28-0-0) was side- dressed in maize plots at 50–65 kg N  ha−1. Field preparation included chisel ploughing to a depth of about 15–20  cm in the fall, using the C-shank cultivator in the spring before broadcast- ing preplant fertilizers, and followed by Triple K cultivator after fertilizer application. Planting dates for canola and wheat varied from the last week of April to 11 May, depending on the weather condi- tions in each year. Maize was planted mostly in the 1st two weeks of May and soybean during the last two weeks of May. Seeding densities varied among crops: canola at 6 kg  ha−1, maize at 80,000 plants ha−1, wheat at 135–157  kg  ha−1, and soybean at 104–111 kg  ha−1. Data collection General agronomic data, including yield components (number of plants m−2, grains plant−1, and mean grain weight) and yield at harvest, were collected annually at each site. At physiological maturity, seed and straw samples were collected to estimate harvest index. Plant biomass was estimated from harvest index sam- ples, and yield data were obtained from plot combine harvests. At the Ottawa site, seed and straw samples from the harvest index measurements, and root sam- ples collected at the physiological maturity, were oven dried at 70 °C, ground and digested by Kjeldahl method and assessed for N concentration using an automatic analyzer (Lachat Quikchem Flow Injection Analysis System, Lachat Instruments, Milwaukee, WI). Straw and root samples in 2014, 2015 and 2016 at the Montreal and Canning sites were also collected and analyzed by following the same protocol. Nitro- gen accumulation in grain, straw and roots was calcu- lated as the product of their respective dry matter and N concentration. Average N concentrations in straw and roots were used in the estimation of crop residue N in years when N analysis was not performed. These data were used for the estimation of N contained in crop residues (straw and roots). Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions and C footprint The GHGs at farm gate levels were estimated from various sources by following the approach of Gan et  al. (2011a, b). This included the following five sources: (1) energy used in the processes of manufac- turing, transportation and delivering of synthetic N, phosphorus and potassium fertilizers; (2) direct soil N2O emissions from synthetic N fertilizer applica- tion; (3) emissions from crop residue decomposition; (4) indirect soil N2O emissions from N loss via vola- tilization and leaching, and (5) emissions from fos- sil fuel used with different field activities from land preparation, spray and harvesting (not including grain drying). GHG emissions from all sources were con- verted into CO2 equivalents (CO2-eq) to allow com- parisons between various treatments using the same functional unit (Ma et al. 2012). Due to the relatively short duration of this experiment, we assumed that monoculture or crop rotation at each site would not result in measurable changes in soil organic carbon. 195Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) This assumption is supported by the fact that in Can- ada, change in soil organic carbon is often observed for tillage systems (Liang et al. 2020) and rotational conversions of perennial and annual crops (King et al. 2020; Maillard et al. 2016), whereas this effect is usu- ally absent in annual crop rotations, especially in the cool and humid regions of eastern Canada. Synthetic fertilizers and crop residues provide N sources for nitrification and denitrification, contrib- uting directly and indirectly to soil N2O emissions. Rochette et  al. (2018) performed a meta-analysis based on a large number of measured soil N2O flux data and developed a simple model to determine N2O emission factors based on growing season precipita- tion (P): where EF is the emission factor with a unit of kg N2O-N kg−1 of N and P is the growing season pre- cipitation from 1 May to 31 October. Liang et  al. (2020) proposed a method for esti- mating soil N2O emissions from synthetic N as urea (including UAN, 50% of which consisted of urea) and crop residue N as follows: where CO2eqSN is the total emissions from the syn- thetic N fertilizer application (kg CO2−eq ha−1), QSN is the quantity of synthetic N fertilizer applied (kg N  ha−1), FRAC GASM is the fraction of synthetic N fertilizer that volatilizes as NH3– and NOx−N (FRAC GASM, kg N kg−1 N), EFVD is the N2O emis- sion factor for volatilized NH3– and NOx−N (EFVD, kg N2O–N  kg−1 N). RFTX is a ratio modifier for soil texture (fraction), EFLEACH is the N2O emission fac- tor for nitrate leaching (EFLEACH, kg N2O-N kg−1 N), 44/28 is the conversion coefficient from N2O–N to N, and 298 is the global warming potential of N2O over 100 years (IPCC 2006). where CO2eqCRN is the total emissions from the crop residue N (kg CO2-eq ha−1), QCRN is the quantity of crop residue N (kg N  ha−1), and RFSN is a ratio modi- fier relative to synthetic N (fraction). (1)EF = e (0.00558×P−7.7) (2)CO2eqSN = QSN × {( FRACGASM × EFVD ) + EF × RFTX + ( FRACLEACH × EFLEACH )} × 44∕28 × 298 (3)CO2eqCRN = QCRN × { EF × RFSN × RFTX + ( FRACLEACH × EFLEACH )} × 44∕28 × 298 Urea and urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) are com- monly used as N sources in field crop productions, and during urea hydrolysis, the C contained in urea is released as CO2 (IPCC, 2006). It is assumed that 50% of N from UAN is urea. The emissions of CO2 from urea can be calculated as: where CO2eqSN-CO2 is the emissions of CO2 from the urea application (kg  CO2-eq  ha−1), QSN-UREA is the quantity of urea fertilizer applied (kg N  ha−1), 12/28 is the ratio of C to N in urea, and 44/12 is the conver- sion factor of C to CO2. The growing season precipitation from 2011 to 2018 for Ottawa, Montreal and Canning, soil N2O EFs, ratio modifiers for N source and soil texture, other IPCC default parameters and EFs for estimating direct and indirect soil N2O emissions are provided in Table S1. The inorganic fertilizer manufacturing process (i.e., production, transportation and delivery of the product to the farm) generally leads to intensive emis- sions, and the estimated average coefficient factor is 4.8 kg  CO2-eq  kg−1 N for N and 0.73 kg  CO2-eq  kg−1 P for P (Lal 2004). Herbicide was used at recom- mended rates in these studies, and an average coeffi- cient factor of 23.1 kg  CO2-eq  kg−1 active ingredient was estimated for its use (Lal 2004). Emissions asso- ciated with field operations include spraying herbi- cides (5 kg  CO2-eq  ha−1), planting (14  CO2-eq  ha−1) and harvesting (37  CO2-eq  ha−1) for all crops (Lal 2004). The C footprint of crop production was cal- culated for each crop as the total GHGs per kg of grain produced under the specific growing conditions, expressed as kg  CO2-eq  kg−1 of grain. The compari- son of the C footprint was performed at the system level, first comparing crop rotation (Rot; all crops) and MONO (including canola, maize and wheat, no soybean), and then focusing on comparison of rota- tional canola (canola following maize, soybean or wheat) versus continuous canola monoculture (CC). (4)CO2eqSNF-CO2 = QSNF-UREA × 12∕28 × 44∕12 196 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) Statistical analysis The yield, N uptake, GHGs and C footprint data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each site, by following a mixed model procedure of the statistical analysis system (SAS), where year and replication were considered random effects, crops and crop sequence as the fixed effects. To assess the impact of the previous crop on canola, a separate ANOVA was also performed following the two-letter coding system described above, with the first letter representing the previous year’s crop and the second letter representing the current year’s crop. In all cases, treatment mean comparisons were made according to the protected t-test when the ANOVA showed signifi- cant at P ≤ 0.05. Results Effects of weather and cropping systems on crop productivity The growing season precipitation varied widely among the years and sites, ranging from 353 mm in 2015 to 752 mm in 2017 at Ottawa, from 468 mm in 2012 to 710 mm in 2011 at Montreal, and 387 mm in 2012 to 884 mm in 2011 at Canning. Results showed that crop productivity of both monoculture and rota- tion cropping systems was strongly affected by the weather conditions (precipitation and temperature) at each site. The growing seasons were unusually hot and dry, with 34, 24 and 28 heat-stress days (HSD; air temperature > 29.5 °C; Wen et al. 2022) at Ottawa in 2012, 2016, and 2018, respectively, and 21 and 17 HSD at Montreal as well as 10 and 15 HSD at the Canning site in 2012 and 2016. At these locations, the 30-year long-term trends averaged 15, 11 and 8 HSD, respectively. Although total rainfall during the grow- ing season (May–September) was not much different from the long-term norm at these locations (with the exception of only 86, 94 and 78% of the long-term average in 2016), rainfall during the flowering period had a significant beneficial effect on canola yield potential. (5)C footprint = Total GHGs (kg CO2-eq ha −1)∕grain yield ( kg ha−1 ) Crop rotation significantly increased the yields of all four crops compared to the continuous monocul- ture cropping (MONO; including canola, maize and wheat, but no continuous soybean) at all three sites (Fig. 1). Compared to MONO, overall, crop rotation significantly increased grain yield, with an average increase of 42% at Canning, 35% at Ottawa, and 19% at Montreal. At the Ottawa site, crop rotation signifi- cantly increased grain yields in all years except 2012, due to the hot summer and severe drought at critical growth stages of crops (Fig.  1). Canola crop yields were significantly lower in 2018 than other years due to heat and drought stress from the rosette to pod fill- ing stages. At the Montreal site in 2012 and 2013, the aver- age yield was significantly higher (almost double) for rotation crops than for MONO cropping. How- ever, from 2014 to 2016, there was no significant dif- ference in yields between the two cropping systems (Fig. 1). The highest yield in both cropping systems occurred in 2017, when the average yield was signifi- cantly lower for rotation than for MONO. At the Can- ning site, crop rotation produced significantly higher yields in 2012 and 2013 than MONO cropping. From 2014 to 2017, although the rotation also had rela- tively higher grain yields, the difference between the two cropping systems was not significant (Fig.  1). Overall, there were no differences in N concentration or uptake by canola plant components, but canola fol- lowing soybean generally had higher grain and straw N concentrations and N uptake than canola monocul- tured, sometimes significantly (Table 2). Effect of cropping systems on canola crop productivity This study began in 2011, so canola yield was not affected by any preceding crop. Canola yields in 2011 were, on average, 2820  kg  ha−1 at Ottawa, 1770 kg  ha−1 at Montreal, and 2030 kg  ha−1 at Can- ning. From 2012, the effect of crop rotation on can- ola yield varied with the preceding crop at each site and between sites (Table  3). At Ottawa, canola fol- lowing soybean (SC) produced the highest average yield of 2380  kg  ha−1, 10% higher than continuous 197Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) Fig. 1 Comparison of annual mean grain yields for crop production in monoculture (Mono; including canola, maize and wheat, but not continuous soybean) and rotation (Rot) systems in a field experi- ment conducted from 2011 to 2018 at three sites across eastern Canada. Within a site, treatment means with different letters (a, b) are significantly different by the protected LSD0.05 test a b b b b b b b a a a a a a 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Yi el d (k g ha -1 ) O�awa b b a a a a a a a a a b 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Yi el d (k g ha -1 ) Montreal b b a a a a a a a a a a 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Yi el d (k g ha -1 ) Canning Mono Rot Table 2 Comparison of canola plant N concentration and uptake as affected by rotation systems at the Ottawa site Means followed by different letters (a, b) are significantly different by the protected LSD0.05 test Treatment Grain N Straw N Root N Total N Uptake Concentration Uptake Concentration Uptake Concentration Uptake % kg N ha−1 % kg N ha−1 % kg N ha−1 kg N ha−1 Continuous canola 3.52ab 65.4b 0.51a 32.7a 0.75a 6.7b 101.9b Canola after soybean 3.56a 73.0a 0.56a 40.1a 0.79a 8.3ab 116.8a Canola after wheat 3.53ab 69.0ab 0.49ab 33.2a 0.8a 9.1a 109.8ab Canola after maize 3.39b 66.7b 0.42b 33.2a 0.71a 8.0ab 106.7ab 198 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) canola monoculture (CC), 8% higher than MC or 5% higher than WC. Year had the largest impact on canola yields in SC rotation, ranging from the lowest of 1020 kg  ha−1 in 2018 to the highest 3280 kg  ha−1 in 2013. The canola yield of SC rotations outper- formed CC in four years, and the lowest yield for CC occurred in three out of the seven years (Table 3). In 2013 and 2014, canola yields were relatively high, regardless of the previous crop, likely due to abun- dant rainfall and fewer days of high temperature stress during the flowering stage of canola (Ma et al. 2016). In contrast, Ottawa’s low canola yields in 2012, 2016 and 2018 were accompanied by very low precipita- tion and hot temperatures during the growing season. At the Montreal site, averaged across the years, the MC rotation had the highest canola yield of 2450  kg  ha−1, which was 47% higher than CC. The highest canola yields occurred in MC for three years and in SC rotation for two years (Table  3). The CC cropping produced the lowest canola yield of all crop rotations (MC, SC and WC). At the Canning site, canola produced the high- est yield in WC rotation, with an average yield of 2410  kg  ha−1, which was 28% higher than CC. The highest canola yield occurred in the WC rotation for three years, and in SC and MC rotations in one year out of the six years (Table  3). Over the years, aver- age canola yield in SC rotations was 13% higher than CC, and 4% higher compared to the MC rotations (Table 3). Comparing canola yields among sites (Table 3), at Ottawa, the SC rotation produced the highest canola yield, 7% higher than Montreal, and 12% higher than Canning for the same rotation cropping. At Montreal, the MC rotation produced the highest canola yield, 11% higher than Ottawa, and 19% higher than Can- ning. At Canning, the WC rotation had the highest canola yield, 9% higher than Ottawa, and 18% higher than Montreal. The canola yield in CC also varied by locations, with Ottawa canola yields averaging 30% higher than Montreal, and 15% higher than Canning (Table 3). These results indicate that the canola crop growth and yields were significantly affected by pre- vailing weather conditions (HSD and rainfall distribu- tion pattern) at each site. Effect of cropping systems on GHG emissions of canola production In 2011, the year the study began, Ottawa had the lowest GHG emissions of 1050  CO2-eq  ha−1, while total GHGs were 1830  CO2-eq  ha−1 at Canning and 1760  CO2-eq  ha−1 at Montreal (data not shown). In the following years, the total GHGs varied by loca- tions (Fig. 2), with Montreal having the highest aver- age annual total GHG emissions at 1245  CO2-eq  ha−1, Table 3 Annual means and standard errors (in brackets) of canola grain yields in continuous monoculture (CC), or in rotation following soybean (SC), wheat (WC) or maize (MC) cropping system at Ottawa, ON, Montreal, QC, and Canning, NS sites Means followed by different letters (a, b, c) are significantly different by the protected LSD0.05 test CC Continuous canola monoculture; SC Canola following soybean; WC Canola following wheat; MC Canola following maize. n/a Not available Canola grain yields (kg ha−1) Rotation 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ottawa CC 2101a 2898b 2667b 2832a 1580b 1876a 1188a SC 2134a 3277a 2879ab 3110a 2112a 2124a 1018a WC 1921a 3150ab 3033ab 2690a 1859ab 2186a 970a MC 2085a 3068ab 3083a 2599a 1516b 2130a 1009a Montreal CC 2285b 1554b 839a 3050b 601c n/a n/a SC 3023a 2391a 1103a 3641ab 985bc n/a n/a WC 2982a 1699b 933a 3517ab 1299ab n/a n/a MC 3418a n/a 767a 3942a 1667a n/a n/a Canning CC 970b 1777c 1026b n/a 2448a 3170a n/a SC 1658a 2554b 2412a 1748b 2007ab 2378b n/a WC 1423ab 3435a 2656a 1925b 2319ab 3029ab n/a MC 1147ab 2244bc 2167a 2449a 1860b 2439b n/a 199Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) 20% higher than Canning (990  CO2-eq  ha−1) and 10% higher than Ottawa. Mono-culture cropping and rota- tional crop production had similar annual total GHGs. At the system level, the notable difference in annual total GHGs between Mono and Rot cropping sys- tems (Fig. 2) was due to the lack of continuous soy- bean in Mono cropping, which produced the lowest GHGs due to use of the least amount of synthetic N fertilizer. Canola production in rotation and continu- ous canola (CC) systems had more or less similar annual total GHGs (Table  4). Overall, Montreal site had the highest total annual GHG emissions at 1170  CO2-eq  ha−1, 22% higher than Canning (910  CO2-eq  ha−1). Ottawa’s total annual GHG emissions (1155  CO2-eq  ha−1) was slightly lower than Montreal. Results further showed that the total GHGs from canola plots that received the same amount of N each year, varied among sites and cropping systems. For example, the total annual GHGs in CC cropping system ranged from 1010 to 1640 kg  CO2-eq  kg−1 at the Ottawa site, from 980 to Fig. 2 Annual total greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) of crop production in monoculture (Mono; including canola, maize and wheat, but not continuous soybean) and rotation (Rot) systems in a field experi- ment conducted from 2011 to 2018 at three sites across eastern Canada. Bars on columns are standard errors of the mean 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 To ta l G HG s ( kg C O 2-e q ha -1 ) O�awa Mono Rot 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 To ta l G HG s ( kg C O 2-e q ha -1 ) Montreal Mono Rot 0 500 1000 1500 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 To ta l G HG s ( kg C O 2-e q ha -1 ) Year Canning Mono Rot 200 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) 1250 kg  CO2-eq  kg−1 at Montreal, and from 800 to 1030 kg  CO2-eq  kg−1 at Canning (Table 4). Regard- less of the preceding crop, canola in CC or Rot sys- tems had similar annual GHG emissions at each location, as both crops received the same inputs, and crop residual N caused differences in emissions only accounted for a small fraction of total GHGs as discussed below. Differences in total annual GHGs between the sites could be attributed to growing season precipitation, which is exponentially related to soil N2O emission factors. The contribution of GHGs from crop residue decomposition that was directly related to crop yield accounted for only a small fraction (4% at Ottawa, 8% at Montreal, and 7% at Canning) of the total GHG emissions (Table  4). The most sig- nificant contribution to the total GHGs came from fertilizer use. On average, the contribution from the production and application of N fertilizer to the total GHG emissions accounted for 69% in canola production, or 72% when including all crops (Table 4). Estimated emissions associated with field operations, including planting, spraying and har- vesting accounted for 10% of the total GHGs, and an additional 8% from herbicide use. Effect of cropping systems on C footprint In this study, crop rotation significantly reduced the overall average C footprint by 33% compared to the continuous Mono cropping, with large varia- tions among sites-years (Fig.  3). Yearly prevailing weather and site conditions had the largest impact on C footprint. For example, in 2016, compared to Mono system, at both Montreal and Ottawa, crop rotation reduced the C footprint of crop production by > 50%. In contrast, the C footprint was 3% higher for Rot cropping than for Mono crops at Canning in the same year. At Ottawa, the highest C footprint was observed in 2018 (0.82 kg  CO2-eq  kg−1 in Mono and 0.54  kg  CO2-eq  kg−1 in rotation), and the lowest in Mono cropping in 2015 (0.31  kg  CO2-eq  kg−1) and the rotation system in 2014 (0.20  kg  CO2-eq  kg−1). At Montreal, the highest C footprint was observed Table 4 Comparisons of total greenhouse gas emissions (mean and standard error in parentheses) and the contributions of various sources to total emissions in canola production under continuous monoculture (CC) compared to canola production in rotations (Rot) Site Year Total Emissions (kg CO2-eq ha−1) Emissions from N fertilizer % Emissions from crop residue % Emissions from field operations % Emissions from Herbi- cides % CC Rot CC Rot CC Rot CC Rot CC Rot Ottawa 2012 1035 (3) 1037 (3) 71.7 71.1 3.7 4.6 9.4 9.3 4.4 4.4 2013 1045 (9) 1054 (5) 72.0 71.7 4.9 5.4 8.4 8.4 5.0 4.9 2014 1161 (4) 1167 (6) 70.3 70.0 3.6 3.9 9.6 9.5 5.6 5.6 2015 1024 (4) 1028 (2) 70.0 70.0 3.3 3.3 9.7 9.7 5.7 5.7 2016 1008 (3) 1009 (2) 68.0 67.7 1.4 1.7 9.4 9.3 11.4 11.4 2017 1153 (3) 1156 (1) 80.9 79.9 2.7 3.9 6.0 5.9 3.5 3.5 2018 1636 (23) 1656 (4) 78.6 78.8 4.8 4.6 9.3 9.4 11.4 11.4 Montreal 2012 1214 (24) 1265 (5) 63.4 60.9 10.1 12.1 8.5 7.7 4.8 3.7 2013 1248 (11) 1280 (5) 67.2 65.5 8.2 11.4 8.3 7.7 4.6 4.5 2014 1144 (7) 1150 (1) 71.3 70.9 4.8 6.8 9.0 8.5 5.0 5.0 2015 1154 (7) 1182 (2) 76.7 74.8 9.1 9.2 9.0 8.3 5.0 4.9 2016 984 (3) 990 (1) 78.2 77.8 3.6 3.7 10.6 10.9 5.9 13.3 Canning 2012 799 (2) 811 (2) 65.0 64.0 3.5 5.0 11.6 11.5 19.8 19.5 2013 929 (3) 945 (4) 69.5 68.3 7.0 8.6 10.0 9.8 13.5 13.3 2014 808 (1) 826 (6) 70.3 68.8 2.1 4.2 11.5 11.3 16.1 15.8 2015 908 (2) 73.7 8.6 10.2 8.1 2016 954 (3) 948 (1) 81.2 81.8 4.3 3.7 9.7 9.8 3.6 3.7 2017 1025 (2) 1016 (4) 81.5 82.3 5.5 4.7 9.1 9.2 3.4 3.4 201Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) for Mono cropping in 2016 (0.88  kg  CO2-eq  kg−1), and for rotation in 2014 (0.68 kg  CO2-eq  kg−1). The lowest C footprint for both cropping systems was measured in 2017 (0.25  kg  CO2-eq  kg−1 in Mono and 0.19  kg  CO2-eq  kg−1 in rotation). At Can- ning, the highest C footprint for Mono cropping was in 2012 (0.86  kg  CO2-eq  kg−1) and for rota- tions in 2015 (0.44  kg  CO2-eq  kg−1). The lowest C footprint for Mono cropping was in 2016 and 2017 (0.27  kg  CO2-eq  kg−1), and for rotation in 2014 (0.26  kg  CO2-eq  kg−1). Overall, across years, crop rotation significantly reduced the C footprint in all three sites; 38% at both Ottawa and Montreal, and 22% in Canning compared to Mono cropping (Fig. 3). For canola production, compared to CC, the C foot- print of rotational canola was similar at Ottawa, but it was reduced by crop rotation by an average of 23% at Montreal, and by 15% at Canning (Fig. 4). Specifi- cally, At Montreal, the SC rotation had the lowest C footprint in 2013 (0.55 vs 0.83 kg  CO2-eq  kg−1) and Fig. 3 Comparison of annual mean C footprint for crop production in monoculture (Mono; including canola, maize and wheat, but not continuous soybean) and rotation (Rot) systems in a field experi- ment conducted from 2011 to 2018 at three sites across eastern Canada. Within a site, treatment means with different letters (a, b) are significantly different by the protected LSD0.05 test a a a a a a a b b b b b b b 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 C fo ot pr in t ( kg C O 2 eq k g-1 gr ai n) O�awa a a a a a a b b a b b b 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 C fo ot pr in t ( kg C O 2 eq k g-1 gr ai n) Montreal a a a a a a b b b b a a 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 C fo ot pr in t ( kg C O 2 eq k g-1 gr ai n) Canning Mono Rot 202 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) 2014 (1.21 vs 2.89  kg  CO2-eq  kg−1), and CC crop- ping produced the highest C footprint in three (2012, 2015 and 2016) years. On a yearly basis, the highest C footprint was found in 2014, and the lowest C foot- print in 2012. Compared to CC cropping, the largest reduction in C footprint was in MC (32%), followed by SC (18%) rotation, averaged across years. At the Canning site, CC plots had the highest C footprint in 2012, 2013 and 2014, while the lowest C footprint was observed in WC in 2014, and in SC rotation in 2013 and 2014. This location-induced difference in the C foot- print of canola production was that Ottawa was the only site to conduct the study in 2018, when the site experienced historical drought stress in 2018 (Table 4; Fig. 4). If the 2018 data was excluded, the C footprint of rotational canola at Ottawa was also on average 14% lower than CC. Specifically, with or without 2018 data, the difference in the C footprint between WC and CC ranged from − 20 to + 8%, while the difference between SC and CC ranged from − 14 to − 9%. This suggests that the benefits of crop rota- tion in reducing C footprint for canola production are crop-specific, with canola following soybean being more stable than canola following wheat. Across years, SC rotation resulted in the lowest C footprint, and CC the highest C footprint in most cases, with a few exceptions (Fig.  4). Regardless of cropping system, because of the major contribu- tion of synthetic N fertilizer use to GHGs, canola had the highest C footprint (0.655  kg  CO2-eq  kg−1 averaged across all site-years), while soybean had the lowest C footprint (0.129  kg  CO2-eq  kg−1) of all four crops at the three locations. The C footprint was on average 0.190 kg  CO2-eq  kg−1 for maize and 0.431 kg  CO2-eq  kg−1 for wheat. The apparent higher C footprint for wheat compared with that for maize was due to the large difference in grain yield. Discussion In this study, we hypothesized that rotational canola would serve as a viable crop in maize-soybean or potato-grain based cropping systems because it would increase canola productivity and nutrient uptake, while reducing system-level C footprint compared to continuous canola monoculture. Our results demon- strate that adoption of diverse cropping systems with well-designed crop sequences have improved produc- tivity and N uptake, as well as environmental benefits over the canola continuous cropping systems. Below, we discuss the results of different preceding crops on crop productivity, GHG emissions, and C footprint of canola in eastern Canadian conditions. The effect of crop rotation on improving crop productivity is influenced by weather conditions From 2012 onwards, the results demonstrate that the crop productivity of all four crops in most years across three locations were improved by crop rotation Fig. 4 Comparison of C footprint of canola produc- tion in different rotation systems averaged across sites and years of a field experiment conducted in eastern Canada. CC, continuous canola; WC, canola following wheat, SC; canola following soybean; and MC, canola following maize. Bars on columns are standard errors of the mean 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 CC WC SC MC C fo ot pr in t ( kg C O 2-e q kg -1 gr ai n) Canola following different crops O�awa Montreal Canning 203Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) compared to the monoculture cropping. However, the extent of improvement in crop yields varied greatly among years and sites, mainly because of variation in prevailing weather conditions of eastern Canada. During this study, some sites and years experi- enced heat and drought stress in critical crop growth stages. In 2012, Ottawa had a severe drought in June to July and received only 15.2  mm of rain (Ma and Herath 2016). Hence, maize and soybean plants were wilted during the seed-filling period and crop yields were severely affected. In 2016, growing season precipitation at all three sites were much lower than normal, and due to the moderate heat stress, overall crop productivity was severely affected at all three sites (Ma et  al. 2020). In 2018, the combined heat and drought stress during the critical growth stage of canola reduced canola and wheat yields substan- tially in Ottawa. For canola growth, the timing of high temperature stress is more critical (Biswas et al. 2019), because canola is very sensitive to heat stress during the flowering stage, and even a short-period of heat stress at this time can cause pollen abortion and yield loss of up to 43% (Wu et al. 2021). It also reduced N mobilization and transport to sink organs (Ma and Zheng 2016). In contrast, high temperatures during the vegetative phase may increase leaf photo- synthesis, thereby facilitating N uptake (Biswas et al. 2019). Similarly the response to precipitation distri- bution also varies with timing. Drought at the vegeta- tive stage promotes root growth, and the established root system is conducive to growth at the reproduc- tive stage (Biswas et al. 2019; Wu et al. 2017). Over- all, regardless of the cropping system, canola yields were relatively higher in 2013 and 2014 at the Ottawa site, mainly due to abundant precipitation and fewer days of heat stress during canola flowering (Ma et al. 2016). In contrast, Ottawa’s low yields in 2012, 2016, and 2018, coincided with extremely low precipitation and high temperatures during the critical stages of crop development. In this study, canola crop yields varied among sites and years, even for the same cropping system with the same amount of fertilizer application. This indicates that for canola, a cool-season crop, prevailing weather conditions (precipitation and heat) at the site are the main drivers of yield potential realization, affecting soil nutrient turnover and availability as well as crop development and yield formation (Wen et  al. 2021). Since N is susceptible to loss from the soil, especially in humid temperate zones such as eastern Canada, ammonia volatilization, NO3 − leaching, soil N2O emissions and denitrification occur during the crop growing season (Ma et  al. 2010a, b). Consequently, under favorable weather conditions, soil nitrogen availability becomes the limiting factor for canola crop growth (Ma et  al. 2015). When the crops are grown under heat and drought stress, large amounts of unused N fertilizers are left in the soil (Ma et al. 2020). It contributes to GHG emissions and the total C footprint (Ma et al. 2012). Many studies have shown that the use of multiple crop species in a diverse crop rotation system can have a significant impact on canola crop productiv- ity (Bennet et al. 2012; Gan et al. 2010; Harker et al. 2015), but canola yields, N uptake and N mobiliza- tion varied largely by location and year (Ma et  al. 2020; Wen et al. 2021). Crop rotation has been shown to affect soil physical, chemical and biological activi- ties (Deen et  al. 2015), resulting in different growth performance of the rotational canola, and thus the dif- ferent yield responses from year to year. In our study, averaged across years, the highest canola yield and N uptake were found in the SC rotation for Ottawa, in MC rotation for Montreal, and in WC rotation for Canning. In this study, like canola, crop growth and yields of maize, soybean and wheat crops were also affected by prevailing weather conditions at all three sites. Similar findings have been reported in western Can- ada (Johnston et al. 2005; Brandt and Zentner 1995) and Australia (Kirkegaard et al. 2021). The reason for this yield advantage may be that incorporating canola into wheat-based rotations provides many benefits, including weed and disease suppression (Kirkegaard et al. 2008; Bushong et al. 2012; Angus et al. 2015), greater residual nutrients, and soil moisture reserves (Zentner et al. 2002) that enhance subsequent wheat crops. Crop rotation reduced the total GHGs and C footprint Generally, GHG emissions from the agricultural sector are complex due to N variability in soil and environmental conditions and are affected by crop- ping systems and agronomic management. There- fore, quantitative assessment of GHGs is impor- tant to identify site-specific and climate-smart 204 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) crop management practices for minimizing undue harm to the environment. This study estimated the GHGs derived from different agricultural activities in a canola-based phase rotation system and quanti- fied their respective contributions to the total GHG emissions and C footprint of canola production. The intensity of total annual GHG emissions from canola cropping systems varied among loca- tions. On average, crops grown in the Montreal region had the highest GHG, 20% higher than Can- ning. The variation in total GHGs at different sites were mainly influenced by growing season pre- cipitation, which has been used to calculate soil N2O EF as an exponential function (Rochette et al. 2018). Growing season precipitation can have a sig- nificant impact on soil N2O emissions, as increas- ing soil moisture levels and decreasing soil aeration with high precipitation, are known to lead to high soil N2O production (David et  al. 2018; Rochette et al. 2018; Liang et al. 2020). The GHGs, especially soil N2O emission have been directly linked with inorganic N fertilization in the field crops (Hillier et  al. 2009; Ma et  al. 2010b; Smith et  al. 2008), because soil N2O production is influenced by substrate availability of N through N inputs (Lin and Hernandez-Ramirez 2020). As expected, our results showed that the major contri- bution to total GHG emissions was from the use of synthetic fertilizer N. Synthetic N fertilizers and crop residues provide N sources for nitrification and denitrification, thus contributing to direct (Ma et  al. 2010b) and indirect emissions (Ma et al. 2010a). The intensity of emissions from N fertilizer application varied among sites mainly due to the interaction with environmental conditions (Gan et al. 2012). The C footprint values varied greatly within a site over years. At Ottawa, the highest C footprints in both monoculture and rotation cropping systems in 2018 were largely due to heat and drought stress that occurred during the critical flowering stage, which severely affected canola yields. At Montreal, the highest C footprint in 2014 was linked to the low- est canola yield, produced that year. At Canning, the C footprint was highest for monoculture cropping in 2012 and for crop rotation in 2015 because of the lowest canola yields in those two years. On average, crop rotation significantly reduced the C footprint, by 33%, compared to monoculture. However, the effect of crop rotation on C footprint varied substantially among sites. Over the years, crop rotation lowered the C footprint by 38% at both Ottawa and Montreal sites, and by 22% at Canning. These results indicate that site-specific weather conditions during the crop grow- ing season played a major role in C footprint determi- nation at each site. Among crop rotations, SC rotation typically had the lowest C footprint values (38% of the time in Ottawa, 33% of the time in both Montreal and Can- ning), while CC cropping had the highest C footprint at least 50% of the time (57% cases in Ottawa), with a few exceptions. Canola crops following soybean (SC) had higher N uptake and grain N removal than CC at the same fertilization rate, which resulted in lower soil available N and GHG emissions, and thus a reduced C footprint compared to CC. The larger C footprint reduction in SC rotation may be related to the improved N uptake as more available N is released by organic N mineralization (Ma et al. 2003) and greater uptake was found at the Ottawa site in this study; alternatively the difference could have been due to less removal of N from the system due to low crop residues (Almaraz et al. 2009; Ma et al. 2012). Similarly, Gan et al. (2011b) reported a 17% lower C footprint of durum wheat (Triticum durum L.) grown by following legume crops in the Canadian prairie. In the inland Pacific Northwest United States, Ankathi et al. (2019) demonstrated that, from a trade-off plot of GHG emissions versus total sales over 6  years, the diversified cropping system [reduced tillage fal- low (RTF)—winter oilseed—RTF—winter wheat (WW) and summer fallow -WW] proved to be the most promising rotation for low emissions and high sales, with canola following RTF having the smallest C footprint of 660 g  CO2-eq  kg−1. In our study, inter- annual variability in the growing season precipitation within each site played a major role in soil N2O emis- sion levels, which contributed to the total GHG emis- sions and C footprint of canola. Regardless of the cropping system, canola had the highest C footprint, and soybean had the lowest at all three sites (Fig. 4), which is directly related to the use of synthetic N fertilizers in canola production, while soybean obtained its N mainly from symbiotic N fixation (Ma et al. 2003). Previous studies reported that canola had the largest GHG emissions per unit of grain (Dyer et al. 2010; Gan et al. 2011a). The higher GHGs of canola crops is mainly related to the addi- tion of N fertilizers, since canola is a non-legume 205Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) cash crop that requires large amounts of N fertilizer (Ma and Herath 2016), whereas soybean production requires zero or minimal application of N fertilizer. Even with the lowest C footprint, soybean mono- culture is not a viable sustainable cropping system because soybean returned the least crop residue to the soil and is generally a poor crop for soil C sequestra- tion (Almaraz et al. 2009; Ma et al. 2012). As a high- value oilseed, canola contains higher oil and protein concentrations than maize or wheat crops (Ma and Herath 2016). This may indicate the limitations of grain-based C footprint assessment calculation meth- ods as a standard for cross-species comparisons. Overall, the results of the present study show that canola can be grown effectively as a rotational crop in eastern Canada’s maize-soybean or potato-grain dom- inated cropping systems. With intensified global cli- mate change, canola producers are facing the growing conundrum of attempting to increase productivity in the face of increasingly frequent and intense episodes of heat and drought stress (Wu et  al. 2018, 2020). Therefore, to further reduce GHG emissions in canola production and lower its C footprint, improving N use efficiency by optimizing N fertilizer applications and selecting heat- and drought-tolerant canola varieties are the key measures for sustainable canola produc- tion (Wen et al. 2022). Conclusions In this research, we conducted a two-cycle 4-yr phase rotation study focusing on canola production in east- ern Canada. We found that growing canola in a rota- tion significantly increased crop yield and N uptake while reducing the C footprint in most site-years compared to monoculture production, apart from a few cases where severe heat and drought stress strongly affected crop production. Our research shows that preceding canola with soybean is a promising strategy to increase canola crop productivity and N uptake and, in turn, lower the canola C footprint in eastern Canada. However, the beneficial effects of crop rotation on canola crop productivity and sus- tainability are very much dependent on the prevail- ing environmental conditions during the canola crop growing season. The potential for expanding canola production in eastern Canada is promising. Yet, site- specific environmental conditions (i.e., precipitation and temperature) that are unique to humid temper- ate growing conditions in eastern Canada should be considered when developing and implementing agro- nomic management strategies. Our data suggest that the cool season canola crop production is threatened by increasing heat and drought stresses due to global climate change. There is an urgent need to develop new agronomic solutions such as eco-friendly fertiliz- ers, stress-resistant canola varieties, the use of ben- eficial plant growth-promoting bacteria and beneficial micronutrients to mitigate abiotic stresses, thereby increasing canola yield and reducing GHG emissions and C footprint. Acknowledgements This study was financially supported, in part, by the Eastern Canada Oilseed Development Alliance (ECODA), and by the Canola Council of Canada, Alberta Canola, SaskCanola and Manitoba Canola Growers Associa- tion through the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) Growing Forward II Project J-000292 and Canadian Agri- cultural Partnership AgriScience Program Project J-001959. We thank Lynne Evenson and Scott Patterson (retired) at the Ottawa Research and Development Centre (ORDC) of AAFC, Dr. Selvakumari Arunachalam of McGill University, and Doug Macdonald (retired) of Dalhousie University, for their excellent technical assistance in the field and laboratory work for this study. AAFC-ORDC contribution no. 23-015. Funding Open access funding provided by Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada. Availability of data and material Not applicable. Code availability Not applicable. Declarations Conflicts of interest Authors declare no conflicts of interest. Ethics approval All the authors approved. Consent to participate Not applicable. Consent for publication Crown copyright. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Com- mons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Crea- tive Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly 206 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Almaraz JJ, Zhou X, Mabood F, Madramootoo C, Rochette P, Ma BL, Smith DL (2009) Greenhouse gas fluxes associ- ated with soybean production under two tillage systems in southwestern Quebec. Soil Tillage Res 104:134–139 Angus JF, Kirkegaard JA, Hunt JR, Ryan MH, Ohlander L, Peoples MB (2015) Break crops and rotations for wheat. Crop Pasture Sci 66(6):523–552 Ankathi SK, Long DS, Gollany HT, Das P, Shonnard D (2019) Life cycle assessment of oilseed crops produced in rota- tion with dryland cereals in the inland Pacific Northwest. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:627–641 Better Farming (2011) http:// www. bette rfarm ing. com/ online- news/ easte rn- canad ian- canola- soybe an- crush ers- estab lish- joint- ventu re- 4870 Biswas DK, Ma BL, Morrison MJ (2019) Changes in leaf nitrogen and phosphorus content, photosynthesis, respi- ration, growth, and resource use efficiency of a rapeseed cultivar as affected by drought and high temperatures. Can J Plant Sci 99(4):488–498 Blackshaw RE, Johnson EN, Gan Y, May WE, McAndrew D, Barthet V, McDonald T, Wispinski D (2011) Alternative oilseed crops for biodiesel feedstock on the Canadian prai- ries. Can J Plant Sci 91(5):889–896 Brandt SA, Zentner RP (1995) Crop production under alternate rotations on a dark brown chernozemic soil at Scott. Sask Can J Plant Sci 75(4):789–794 Bushong JA, Griffith AP, Peeper TF, Epplin FM (2012) Con- tinuous winter wheat versus a winter canola–winter wheat rotation. Agron J 104(2):324–330 David C, Lemke R, Helgason W, Farrell RE (2018) Current inventory approach overestimates the effect of irrigated crop management on soil-derived greenhouse gas emis- sions in the semi-arid Canadian prairies. Agric Water Manag 208:19–32 Deen W, Martin RC, Hooker D, Gaudin A (2015) Crop rotation trends: past, present and future benefits and drivers. In: Ma BL (ed) Crop rotations: farming practices, monitoring and environmental benefits. Nova Science Publisher Inc, New York, pp 35–50 Dyer JA, Vergé XPC, Desjardins RL, Worth DE, McConkey BG (2010) The impact of increased biodiesel production on the greenhouse gas emissions from field crops in Can- ada. Energy Sustain Dev 14(2):73–82 ECCC—Environment and climate Change Canada (2021) National Inventory Report 1990–2019: greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada. Canada’s submission to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Environment and climate change Canada. St-Joseph Blvd., Gatineau, Quebec, Canada Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forc- ing. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovern- mental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 129–234 Gan Y, Liang C, Hamel C, Cutforth H, Wang H (2011a) Strategies for reducing the carbon footprint of field crops for semiarid areas. A Review Agron Sustain Dev 31(4):643–656 Gan Y, Liang C, Wang X, McConkey B (2011b) Lowering car- bon footprint of durum wheat by diversifying cropping systems. Field Crops Res 122(3):199–206 Gan J, Smith CT, Langeveld JWA (2012) Effects of consid- ering greenhouse gas consequences on fertilizer use in loblolly pine plantations. J Environ Manag 113:383–389 Harker KN, O’Donovan JT, Turkington TK, Blackshaw RE, Lupwayi NZ, Smith EG, Johnson EN, Gan Y, Kutcher HR, Dosdall LM, Peng G (2015) Canola rotation fre- quency impacts canola yield and associated pest species. Can J Plant Sci 95(1):9–20 Hillier J, Hawes C, Squire G, Hilton A, Wale S, Smith P (2009) The carbon footprints of food crop production. Intern J Agric Sustain 7(2):107–118 IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2006) IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, volume 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use. Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change. Paris, France. http:// www. ipcc- nggip. iges. or. jp/ public/ 2006gl/ vol4. htm Janzen HH, Angers DA, Boehm M, Bolinder M, Desjardins RL, Dyer J, Ellert BH, Gregorich EG, Helgason BL, Lemke R, Massé D, McGinn SM, McAllister TA, New- lands N, Pattey E, Rochette P, Smith W, VandenBygaart AJ, Wang H (2006) A proposed approach to estimate and reduce net greenhouse gas emissions from whole farms. Can J Soil Sci 86(3):401–418 Johnston AM, Kutcher HR, Bailey KL (2005) Impact of crop sequence decisions in the Saskatchewan Parkland. Can J Plant Sci 85(1):95–102 King AE, Congreves KA, Deen B, Dunfield KE, Simpson MJ, Voroney RP, Wagner-Riddle C (2020) Crop rotations dif- fer in soil carbon stabilization efficiency, but the response to quality of structural plant inputs is ambiguous. Plant Soil 457:207–224 Kirkegaard J, Christen O, Krupinsky J, Layzell D (2008) Break crop benefits in temperate wheat production. Field Crops Res 107(3):185–195 Kirkegaard JA, Lilley JM, Berry PM, Rondanini DP (2021) Chapter  17 canola. In: Sadras VO, Calderini DF (eds) Crop physiology: case histories for major crops, 1st edn. Academic Press, London, pp 519–549 Krupinsky JM, Bailey KL, McMullen MP, Gossen BD, Turk- ington TK (2002) Managing plant disease risk in diversi- fied cropping systems. Agron J 94:198–209 Lal R (2004) Carbon emissions from farm operations. Environ Intern 30:981–990 Liang BC, Herath AW, Ma BL (2016) Carbon footprints in crop rotation systems. In: Ma BL (ed) Crop rotations: farming practices, monitoring and environmental benefits. Nova Science Publisher Inc, New York, pp 177–207 Liang BC, VandenBygaart AJ, MacDonald JD, Cerkowniak D, McConkey BG, Desjardins RL, Angers DA (2020) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://www.betterfarming.com/online-news/eastern-canadian-canola-soybean-crushers-establish-joint-venture-4870 http://www.betterfarming.com/online-news/eastern-canadian-canola-soybean-crushers-establish-joint-venture-4870 http://www.betterfarming.com/online-news/eastern-canadian-canola-soybean-crushers-establish-joint-venture-4870 http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.htm 207Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2023) 127:191–207 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) Revisiting no-till’s impact on soil organic carbon storage in Canada. Soil till Res 198:104529 Lin S, Hernandez-Ramirez G (2020) Nitrous oxide emissions from manured soils as a function of various nitrification inhibitor rates and soil moisture contents. Sci Total Envi- ron 738:139669 Ma BL, Herath A (2016) Timing and rates of nitrogen fertilizer application on seed yield, quality and nitrogen-use effi- ciency of canola. Crop Pasture Sci 67:167–180 Ma BL, Zheng ZM (2016) Relationship between plant nitro- gen and phosphorus accumulations in a canola crop as affected by nitrogen management under ample phosphorus supply conditions. Can J Plant Sci 96:853–866 Ma BL, Ying J, Dwyer LM, Gregorich EG, Morrison MJ (2003) Crop rotation and soil N amendment effects on maize production in eastern Canada. Can J Soil Sci 83:483–495 Ma BL, Wu TY, Tremblay N, Deen W, McLaughlin NB, Mor- rison MJ, Stewart G (2010a) On-farm assessment of the amount and timing of nitrogen fertilizer on ammonia vola- tilization. Agron J 102:134–144 Ma BL, Wu TY, Tremblay N, Deen W, Morrison MJ, McLaughlin NB, Gregorich EG, Stewart G (2010b) Nitrous oxide fluxes from corn fields: on-farm assess- ment of the amount and timing of nitrogen fertilizer. Glob Chang Biol 16:156–170 Ma BL, Liang BC, Biswas DK, Morrison MJ, McLaughlin NB (2012) The carbon footprint of maize production as affected by nitrogen fertilizer and maize-legume rotations. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 94:15–31 Ma BL, Biswas DK, Herath AW, Whalen JK, Ruan SQ, Cald- well C, Earl H, Vanasse A, Scott P, Smith DL (2015) Growth, yield, and yield components of canola as affected by nitrogen, sulfur, and boron application. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 178:658–670 Ma BL, Zhao H, Zheng ZM, Caldwell C, Mills A, Earl H, Vanasse A, Scott P, Smith DL (2016) Optimizing seeding dates and rates for canola production in the humid eastern Canadian agroecosystems. Agron J 108:1869–1879 Ma BL, Zheng ZM, de Silva N, Whalen JK, Pageau D, Vanasse A, Caldwell C, Earl H, Smith DL (2020) Graphical anal- ysis of nitrogen and sulfur supply on yield and related traits of canola in eastern Canada. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 118(3):293–309 Ma BL, De Haan B, Zheng Z, Xue AG, Chen Y, de Silva NDG, Byker H, Mountain N, Yan W (2022) Exploring the rela- tionships between biomass production, nutrient acqui- sition, and phenotypic traits: testing oat genotypes as a cover crop. J Plant Nutr 45:2931–2944 Maillard É, Angers DA, Chantigny M, Lafond J, Pageau D, Rochette P, Lévesque G, Leclerc ML, Parent LÉ (2016) Greater accumulation of soil organic carbon after liquid dairy manure application under cereal-forage rotation than cereal monoculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 233:171–178 Montzka SA, Dlugokencky EJ, Butler JH (2011) Non- CO2 greenhouse gases and climate change. Nature 476(7358):43–50 OECD/FAO (2021) OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2021– 2030. OECD Publishing, Paris. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1787/ 19428 846- en Quintarelli V, Radicetti E, Allevato E, Stazi SR, Haider G, Abi- deen Z, Bibi S, Jamal A, Mancinelli R (2022) Cover crops for sustainable cropping systems: a review. Agriculture 12:2076 Rochette P, Liang C, Pelster D, Bergeron O, Lemke R, Kroebel R, MacDonald D, Yan W, Flemming C (2018) Soil nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils in Canada: explor- ing relationships with soil, crop and climatic variables. Agric Ecosyst Environ 254:69–81 Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P, McCarl B, Ogle S, O’Mara F, Rice C, Scholes B, Sirotenko O, Howden M, McAllister T, Pan G, Romanen- kov V, Schneider U, Towprayoon S, Wattenbach M, Smith J (2008) Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Phil Trans Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 363(1492):789–813 Wen G, Ma BL, Vanasse A, Caldwell CD, Earl HJ, Smith DL (2021) Machine learning-based canola yield prediction for site-specific nitrogen recommendations. Nutr Cycl Agro- ecosys 121:241–256 Wen G, Ma BL, Vanasse A, Caldwell CD, Smith DL (2022) Optimizing machine learning-based site-specific nitro- gen application recommendations for canola production. Field Crops Res 288:108707 Wu W, Duncan RW, Ma BL (2017) Quantification of canola root morphological traits under heat and drought stresses with electrical measurements. Plant Soil 415:229–244 Wu W, Ma BL, Whalen JK (2018) Enhancing rapeseed toler- ance to heat and drought stresses in a changing climate: Perspectives for stress adaptation from root system archi- tecture. Adv Agron 151:87–151 Wu W, Shah F, Duncan RW, Ma BL (2020) Grain yield, root growth habit and lodging of eight oilseed rape genotypes in response to a short period of heat stress during flower- ing. Agric Forest Meteorol 287:107954 Wu W, Duncan RW, Ma BL (2021) The stage sensitivity of short-term heat stress to lodging—resistant traits and yield determination in canola (Brassica napus L.). J Agron Crop Sci 207:74–87 Zentner RP, Lafond GP, Derksen DA, Campbell CA (2002) Tillage method and crop diversification: effect on eco- nomic returns and riskiness of cropping systems in a thin Black Chernozem of the Canadian prairies. Soil Tillage Res 67:9–21 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. https://doi.org/10.1787/19428846-en https://doi.org/10.1787/19428846-en Canola productivity and carbon footprint under different cropping systems in eastern Canada Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Site descriptions Experimental design and field management Data collection Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions and C footprint Statistical analysis Results Effects of weather and cropping systems on crop productivity Effect of cropping systems on canola crop productivity Effect of cropping systems on GHG emissions of canola production Effect of cropping systems on C footprint Discussion The effect of crop rotation on improving crop productivity is influenced by weather conditions Crop rotation reduced the total GHGs and C footprint Conclusions Acknowledgements Anchor 20 References