Greenhouse gas emissions from rice field cultivation with drip irrigation and plastic film mulch
- 161 Downloads
Ground cover rice production system is a promising technique with potentials to alleviate the effect of the increasing water-scarcity on rice production. Hence, finding appropriate management practices under this system is crucial for reducing global warming without yield loss. In this study, CH4 and N2O were quantified and contrasted in drip irrigation with plastic-film-mulch system (DP) and a continuous flooded rice cultivation system (CF) during two rice growing seasons of 2016 and 2017. The range of methane fluxes observed between irrigation regimes was (− 0.36 to 0.43 mg m−2 h−1) and (− 0.77 to 4.66 mg m−2 h−1) in 2016 and 2017 respectively. The cumulative CH4 emissions in 2017 under CF and DP were 16 times and 5 times higher than in 2016 respectively. DP reduced cumulative CH4 flux by 194% and 69% in 2016 and 2017 respectively compared to CF. Emissions of N2O were low and insignificant for both irrigation regimes. Grain yields were comparable between irrigation regimes with an insignificant reduction of 19% and 5% under DP in 2016 and 2017 respectively. The GWP of the 2-year average was 89% reduced under DP compared to CF. Our findings demonstrated that the DP mitigated GHGs while sustaining rice yield as a result of low nitrogen fertilization application and intermittent soil saturation level.
KeywordsCH4 Drip irrigation with plastic mulch GWP N2O Rice yield
We express our gratitude to Xinjiang Tianyuan Institute of Rice Drip Irrigation System, for a financial support to construct an experimental paddy. We sincerely appreciate the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions which help to improve the earlier version of the manuscript. We also thank Professor Inubushi, K. of Soil Science Laboratory, Chiba University for providing laboratory assistance, and for his contributions to this study.
This study was partly funded by JSPS KAKENHI (JP 16K07570).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
- Barker T, Bashmakov I, Bernstein L et al (2007) Technical summary. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Berger S, Jang I, Seo J, Kang H, Gebauer G (2013) A record of N2O and CH4 emissions and underlying soil processes of Korean rice paddies as affected by different water management practices. Biogeochemistry 2013:1–16Google Scholar
- Davidson EA, Swank WT (1986) Environmental parameters regulating gaseous nitrogen losses from two forested ecosystems via nitrification and denitrification. Appl Environ Microb 52:1287–1292Google Scholar
- FAO (2006) Guidelines for soil description, 4th edn. Publishing Management Service. FAO, Rome, pp 1–109Google Scholar
- IPCC (2007) The physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (2014) Fifth Assessment Report, 2014 (AR5). Global warming potential values. Greenhouse Gas Protocol, pp 1–4Google Scholar
- Jain N, Pathak H, Mitra S, Bhatia A (2004) Emission of methane from rice fields—a review. J Sci Ind Res 63:101–115Google Scholar
- Minamikawa K, Tokida T, Sudo S, Padre A, Yagi K (2015) Guidelines for measuring CH4 and N2O emissions from rice paddies by a manually operated closed chamber method. National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, Tsukuba, pp 38–60Google Scholar
- Oo AZ, Sudo S, Inubushi K, Mano M, Yamamoto A, Ono K, Osawa T, Hayashida S, Patra PK, Terao Y, Elayakumar P, Vanitha K, Umamageswari C, Jothimani P, Ravi V (2018) Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from conventional and modified rice cultivation systems in South India. Agric Ecosyst Environ 252:148–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rath CK, Das SN, Thakur RS (2000) Methane emission from the flooded rice field. J Sci Ind Res 59:107–113Google Scholar
- Rickman JF, Pyseth M, Bunna S (2001) Direct seeding of rice in Cambodia. In: Fukai S, Basnayake J (eds) Increased lowland rice production in the Mekong Region: Proceedings of an International Workshop held in Vientiane, Laos, 30 October–2 November 2000. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Canberra, pp 60–65Google Scholar
- Ruser R, Sehy U, Weber A, Gutser R, Munch JC (2008) Main driving variables and effect of soil management on climate or ecosystem-relevant trace gas fluxes from fields of the FAM in perspectives for agroecosystem management: balancing environmental and socio-economic demands. Elsevier, London, pp 79–120Google Scholar
- Skiba U, Smith KA (2000) The control of nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural and natural soils. Chemosphere 2:379–386Google Scholar
- Suddick EC, Steenwerth GM, Smart DR, Six J (2011) Discerning agricultural management effects on nitrous oxide emissions from conventional and alternative cropping systems: a California case study. In: Chapter 4 of ACS symposium series of American Chemical Society, pp 204–226Google Scholar
- Watanabe AT (2010) Changes in community structure and transcriptional activity of methanogenic archaea in a paddy field soil brought about by a water-saving practice-estimation by PCR-DGGE and qPCR of 16S rDNA and 16S rRNA. In: 19th World Congress of Soil ScienceGoogle Scholar
- Watson RT, Zinyowera MC, Moss RH, Dokken DJ (1996) Climate Change 1995, impacts, adaptations and mitigation of climate change: scientific–technical analyses, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 879Google Scholar
- Wu J, Guo W, Feng J, Li L, Yang H, Wang X, Bian X (2014) Greenhouse gas emissions from cotton field under different irrigation methods and fertilization regimes in arid northwestern China. Sci World J 2014:1–10Google Scholar