greenhouse gas emissions on rice fields
play

Greenhouse gas emissions on rice fields Water seeded subjected to - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Greenhouse gas emissions on rice fields Water seeded subjected to alternate wetting and drying Bruce Linquist Merle Anders, Arlene Adviento-Borbe, Daniela Carrijo, Gabriel LaHue July 13, 2016 Stuttgart, Arkansas UC DAVIS IS University of


  1. Greenhouse gas emissions on rice fields Water seeded subjected to alternate wetting and drying Bruce Linquist Merle Anders, Arlene Adviento-Borbe, Daniela Carrijo, Gabriel LaHue July 13, 2016 Stuttgart, Arkansas UC DAVIS IS University of California

  2. Outline • What is it and why? • Managing drain timing and duration to achieve desired outcomes • Challenges

  3. Alternate wetting and drying Water seeded Drill seeded UC DAVIS IS University of California

  4. Why AWD? Water seeded Drill seeded UC DAVIS IS University of California

  5. Water use: meta-analysis -5.5% (528/58)� (453/39)� -26% (452/39)� +27% Effect� of� AWD� (%)� UC DAVIS IS University of California

  6. Water use: Arkansas cross year averages Water use (m 3 ha -1 ) 9000 Reduction 8000 18% 31% 44% 7000 6000 5000 N 2 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Flood (Control) AWD/40 – Flood AWD/60 AWD/40 UC DAVIS IS Linquist et al., 2015- Global Change Biology University of California

  7. Heavy metals • Arsenic (As) – Present in rice grain – Human health concern – Babies and populations with high rice intake N 2 • Mercury (Hg) – Ecosystem concern – Flooding leads to methylation of Hg = methyl mercury (MeHg) – MeHg is toxic – MeHg bio-accumulates in food systems UC DAVIS IS University of California

  8. Grain arsenic: Arkansas and California - cross year averages Arsenic (µg kg -1 ) 500 a a b b 400 300 200 a b b 100 0 Flood (Control) AWD/40 – AWD/60 AWD/40 Water seeded Water-seeded: Dry seeded: Flood (Control) AWD AWD Arkansas California UC DAVIS IS Arkansas data: Linquist et al., 2015- Global Change Biology California data: LaHue et al., Submitted University of California

  9. Methyl mercury (MeHg) • Rice grain MeHg levels 0.5 Grain not a health concern 0.4 • AWD reduced MeHg in Rice grain MeHg (ng g -1 ) grain by almost 50% 0.3 N 2 • Grain MeHg: good integrator of seasonal 0.2 Hg dynamics 0.1 • Suggests that AWD may reduce overall 0 MeHg production AWD Control UC DAVIS IS University of California

  10. Drains: when and how long? • Windows – When and for how long – Greatest benefits – Least affect on yield N 2 UC DAVIS IS University of California

  11. Drain windows When during the season? Severity of drain UC DAVIS IS University of California

  12. Focus studies: variation in drain severity • Arkansas (Drill seeded - Linquist et al., 2015 Global Change Biology ) – 3 years - Treatments • Continuous flood • One early drain • Two drains (60% saturation) • Two drains (40% saturation) N 2 • California (Water seeded – LaHue et al., In Press ) – 2 years - Treatments (all drains to 35 % VWC) • Water seeded continuous flood • Water seeded 2 drains • Drill seeded 2 drains • California (Water seeded) – 2015 - Treatments • Water seeded continuous flood • Water seeded (35% VWC) UC DAVIS IS • Water seeded (25% VWC) University of California

  13. Yields: Arkansas and California Cross year averages California 2yr Arkansas-3yr • CA: no yield reduction 11 a a a 10 a ab b c Grain yield (kg/ha) with AWD or increased 9 8 soil drying 7 6 • AR: decline with 5 N 2 increased soil drying • Different methodology CA 2015 16000 to estimate soil moisture 13563 13356 13324 Grain yield (kg/ha) 14000 12000 – AR-AWD 60 is drier than 10000 8000 CA-AWD 35 6000 4000 2000 UC DAVIS IS AR data: Linquist et al., 2015- Global Change Biology 0 CA data: LaHue et al., 2016 – Agriculture ,Ecosystems and Environment University of California CF AWD35 AWD25

  14. Factors affecting yield: Meta-analysis • Primary factor affecting yields – water management • Secondary factors that can reduce yields are – High pH soil N 2 – Low carbon soils – High clay soils UC DAVIS IS Carrijo et al., In Prep) University of California

  15. Greenhouse gas emissions • CH4 emissions increase until first drain then drop. • In CA, very little CH4 after first drain 180 Flooded Soil water content • In AR, N2O emissions increased during drain events. Not seen in CA CH 4 150 0.4 N 2 O Soil water content, m3 m-3 -1 day -1 120 0.3 kg CO 2 eq ha 90 60 0.2 N 2 30 0.1 0 California Water-seeded Arkansas Drill-seeded 0.0 AWD/60 30 0.4 Soil water content, m3 m-3 -1 day -1 20 0.3 kg CO 2 eq ha 0.2 10 0.1 0 0.0 UC DAVIS IS AWD/40 30 0.4 University of California m3 m-3 day -1

  16. Greenhouse gas emissions 180 Flooded Soil water content CH 4 150 0.4 N 2 O Soil water content, m3 m-3 -1 day -1 120 0.3 kg CO 2 eq ha 90 60 0.2 30 N 2 0.1 0 0.0 AWD/60 30 0.4 Soil water content, m3 m-3 -1 day -1 20 0.3 kg CO 2 eq ha Kept seasonal emissions low 0.2 10 No emissions 0.1 0 0.0 AWD/40 30 UC DAVIS IS 0.4 ent, m3 m-3 -1 day -1 University of California 20 0.3 ha

  17. CA 2013-2014 GWP GWP % CH 4 N 2 O GWP Treatment Reduction (kg CH 4 -C ha -1 ) (kg N 2 O-N ha -1 ) (kg CO 2 -eq ha -1 ) (CH 4 + N 2 O) Flood 133 a -0.02a 6035a - 61 WS AWD 52 b -0.03a 2361b • CH4 reduced by 60- 85 DS AWD 18 b 0.21a 903c 90% with two CA 2015 drains Flood 338 a -57 a 11262 a - N 2 • N 2 O - low 73 AWD-35 92 b -111 a 3003 b • GWP reductions of 67 AWD-25 111 b -32 a 3681 b 60 – 90% were achieved. AR 2012-2013 Flood 105 a 0.03 b 3520 a - – Discuss later 45 AWD/40 – flood 55 b 0.17 ab 1922 b 90 AWD/60 7 c 0.28 ab 359 c UC DAVIS IS 86 University of California AWD/40 8 c 0.51 a 494 c

  18. CA 2013-2014 Yield-scaled TRT Yield GWP GWP-Y GWP-Y (Mg ha -1 ) (kg CO 2 -eq ha -1 ) (kg CO 2 -eq %Reduction GWP Mg -1 grain) 9.38 Flood 6035a 667a - • Yield-scaled GWP 62 9.66 WS AWD 2361b 251 b – kg CO 2 Mg -1 grain 87 DS AWD 10.71 903c 84 b • Yield-scaled GWP CA 2015 decrease similar to Flood 13.36 11,262 a 947 a - N 2 GWP – GWP decreased 73 AWD-35 13.32 3,003 b 253 b while yields 68 AWD-25 13.56 3,681 b 305 b changed little AR 2012-2013 Flood 10.26 3520 a 347 a - 45 AWD/40 – flood 10.17 1922 b 190 b 89 AWD/60 9.73 359 c 37 c UC DAVIS IS 84 University of California AWD/40 8.97 494 c 55 c

  19. Is there a GHG benefit to extended dry times? California CH 4 N 2 O TRT kg CH 4 -C ha -1 kg N 2 O-N ha -1 • Allowing fields to Flood 338 a -57 a dry longer did not AWD-35 92 b -111 a N 2 reduce GHG AWD-25 111 b -32 a emissions CH 4 N 2 O Arkansas TRT kg CH 4 -C/ha kg N 2 O-N/ha Flood 105 a 0.03 b AWD/60 7 c 0.28 ab AWD/40 8 c 0.51 a

  20. Drain windows and nitrogen mgmt to keep N 2 O low When during the season? Severity of drain UC DAVIS IS University of California

  21. Nitrogen management • Keeping GWP low requires optimal N and water management to minimize N 2 O losses • Introducing aerobic periods into system increases opportunities for losses via N 2 denitrification UC DAVIS IS 2008, USEPA University of California

  22. AWD: N management to reduce N 2 O emissions and N losses Water seeded Topdress 6 weeks if necessary Fertilizer N Drill seeded Topdress if necessary 3 weeks Fertilizer N UC DAVIS IS University of California

  23. Managing N fertilizer and water • Eliminated or California reduced N 2 O emissions • Little to no N NH 4 NO 3 N 2 additional +N losses – Same N rate -N to achieve optimum Anaerobic Aerobic yield UC DAVIS IS University of California

  24. Managing N fertilizer and water • Italian study Italy • Permanent flood N 2 O vs AWD CH 4 • Used nitrification NH 4 inhibitor GWP • Drained randomly • CH 4 PF AWD PF AWD 2012 2013 • N 2 O PF=Permanent flood UC DAVIS IS Lagomarsino et al., (2016) Pedosphere University of California

  25. Drain windows: timing • Water seeded – First drain 45-50 days after planting • Fertilizer N has been taken up • Canopy cover has been achieved (reduced weed issues) N 2 • Drill seeded – First drain 3 weeks after permanent flood • Fertilizer N has been taken up • Canopy cover has been achieved UC DAVIS IS University of California

  26. Drain windows: duration • Drain times: 7-10 days from soil saturation • Longer drain times lead to: – Increased risk of yield loss – Increased water savings N 2 – Lower As??? • Longer drain times do not: – Reduce GWP UC DAVIS IS University of California

  27. 2016 studies: Duration • Drain duration: – Critical for developing strategies for large fields – Reflood up to 5 days N 2 • Studies – Water seeded continuous flood – Safe AWD (reflood when water reaches 15 cm below soil surface) – Water seeded (35% VWC) – Water seeded (25% VWC) • Duration range: 2-10 days UC DAVIS IS • Examining 1 vs 2 drains University of California

  28. In Summary • AWD presents a real win-win-win opportunity – Farm: save water/pumping costs, no yield reduction – Health: reduce grain As N 2 – Environment: water resources, GHG, MeHg UC DAVIS IS University of California

  29. Challenges and opportunities • Field scale – Variability • soils/moisture/rate of drying – Rapid/timely application of water • Wells and poly-pipe are big advantage – Grower comfort N 2 • Programs that allow testing with minimal risk • Future research – Identify dry-down windows where desired benefits are achieved without yield risk • Time during season and length – Develop technologies to monitor soil moisture conditions UC DAVIS IS University of California

Recommend


More recommend