| Literature DB >> 35684762 |
Panneerselvam Rajasekar1, James Arputha Vijaya Selvi1.
Abstract
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from rice fields have huge effects on climate change. Low-cost systems and management practices to quantify and reduce GHGs emission rates are needed to achieve a better climate. The typical GHGs estimation processes are expensive and mainly depend on high-cost laboratory equipment. This study introduces a low-cost sensor-based GHG sampling and estimation system for rice fields. For this, a fully automatic gas chamber with a sensor-integrated gas accumulator and quantifier unit was designed and implemented to study its performance in the estimation efficiency of greenhouse gases (CH4, N2O, and CO2) from rice fields for two crop seasons. For each crop season, three paddy plots were prepared at the experimental site and then subjected to different irrigation methods (continuous flooding (CF), intermittent flooding (IF), and controlled intermittent flooding (CIF)) and fertilizer treatments to study the production and emission rates of GHGs throughout the crop growing season at regular intervals. A weather station was installed on the site to record the seasonal temperature and rainfall events. The seasonal total CH4 emission was affected by the effects of irrigation treatments. The mean CH4 emission in the CIF field was smaller than in other treatments. CH4 and N2O emission peaks were high during the vegetative and reproductive phases of rice growth, respectively. The results indicated that CIF treatment is most suitable in terms of rice productivity and higher water use efficiency. The application of nitrogen fertilizers produced some peaks in N2O emissions. On the whole, the proposed low-cost GHGs estimation system performed well during both crop seasons and it was found that the adaption of CIF treatment in rice fields could significantly reduce GHG emissions and increase rice productivity. The research results also suggested some mitigation strategies that could reduce the production of GHGs from rice fields.Entities:
Keywords: automatic gas chamber; greenhouse gases (GHGs); irrigation treatments; rice fields
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35684762 PMCID: PMC9185635 DOI: 10.3390/s22114141
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1The process of N2O production and emission from rice field.
Figure 2The process of CH4and CO2 production and emission from rice field.
Figure 3Automated sensor assisted gas sampling and estimation system.
Figure 4Proposed gas chamber design.
Figure 5Photocopy of developed Gas sampling box with GAQU installed in rice field.
Various rice field management practices followed in both seasons.
| Practice | Wet Season | Dry Season |
|---|---|---|
| Period of cropping | October 2020 to January 2021 | January 2021 to May 2021 |
| Crop duration | 110 days | 110 days |
| Pre-emergence herbicides | 50 kg of dry sand + Butachlor 1.25 kg/ha | 50 kg of dry sand + Butachlor 1.25 kg/ha |
| Post emergence herbicides | Pretilachlor + safener (Sofit) at 0.45 kg/ha | Pretilachlor + safener (Sofit) at 0.45 kg/ha |
| Fertilizer Application (FA) | 120 kg/ha-DAP + 60 kg/ha-Urea (FA-1) | 120 kg/ha-DAP + 60 kg/ha-Urea |
| 60 kg/ha-Urea (FA-2) | 60 kg/ha-Urea | |
| 120 kg/ha-P2O5 + 60 kg/ha-Urea (FA-3) | 120 kg/ha-P2O5 + 60 kg/ha-Urea | |
| Pesticide Application | Cartap hydrochloride 4% granules @ 18,750–25,000 g/ha | Cartap hydrochloride 4% granules @ 18,750–25,000 g/ha |
| Irrigation | CF–30 cm water (maintained) | CF–30 cm water (maintained) |
Figure 6Three processes utilized for GHG estimation.
Figure 7Average monthly temperature, rainfall and wind speed of the experimental site in both wet and dry season.
Figure 8The seasonal emission of GHGs from the proposed rice fields by irrigation (CF, IF and CIF) and fertilizer treatments (FA-1, FA-2 and FA-3).
Figure 9CO2 emission from rice fields (dry season).
The estimated seasonal plant properties of proposed rice fields.
| Irrigation | Avg. Plant Height | Avg. Panicle Length | Weight of 1000 Grains | Avg. Root Length | Avg. Root Weight | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wet | Dry | Wet | Dry | Wet | Dry | Wet | Dry | Wet | Dry | |
| CF | 101.9 | 104 | 30.1 | 32.4 | 25.1 | 29.5 | 23.5 | 24.3 | 17.5 | 20.2 |
| IF | 97.7 | 100 | 24.2 | 26.4 | 24.6 | 27.5 | 25.8 | 26.4 | 17.4 | 18.4 |
| CIF | 98.8 | 101 | 29.9 | 33.3 | 26.3 | 30.3 | 26.7 | 27.4 | 21.8 | 22.9 |