Biology and Fertility of Soils

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 174–178 | Cite as

Methane mitigation in flooded Louisiana rice fields

  • C. W. Lindau
  • P. K. Bollich
  • R. D. DeLaune
  • A. R. Mosier
  • K. F. Bronson


A field experiment was conducted to determine whether selected nitrification inhibitors (encapsulated calcium carbide and dicyandiamide) and SO inf4 sup-2 -containing compounds [(NH4)2SO4 and Na2SO4] had mitigating effects on CH4 emissions from flooded rice. Microplots were established within a rice bay drill-seeded with the Texmont rice cultivar and CH4 fluxes were measured over the main rice cropping season. Methane emissions over the 77-day sampling period were approximately 230, 240, 260, 290, 310, and 360 kg CH4 ha-1 from the calcium carbide, Na2SO4-rate II, Na2SO4-rate I, (NH4)2SO4, dicyandiamide, and urea (control) treatments, respectively. Reductions in CH4 evolution, compared to the control, ranged from 14 to 35%, depending on treatment. The selected inhibitors and SO inf4 sup-2 -containing compounds appear to be effective in reducing the CH4 emitted from flooded rice fields.

Key words

Methane emissions Flooded soil Greenhouse gas Wetland rice Mitigation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Blake DR, Rowland FS (1988) Continuing worldwide increase in tropospheric methane, 1978–1987. Science 239:1129–1131Google Scholar
  2. Bouwman AF (1991) Agronomic aspects of wetland rice cultivation and associated methane emissions. Biogeochemistry 15:65–88Google Scholar
  3. Bronson KF, Mosier AR (1991) Effect of encapsulated calcium carbide on dinitrogen, nitrous oxide, methane, and carbon dioxide emissions from flooded rice. Biol Fertil Soils 11:116–120Google Scholar
  4. Bronson KF, Touchton JT, Hauck RD (1989) Decomposition rate of dicyandiamide and nitrification inhibition. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 20:2067–2078Google Scholar
  5. Cicerone RJ, Shetter JD, Delwiche CC (1983) Seasonal variations of methane flux from a California rice paddy. J Geophy Res 88:11022–11024Google Scholar
  6. De Bont JAM, Lee KK, Bouldin DF (1978) Bacterial oxidation of methane in a rice paddy. Ecol Bull 26:91–96Google Scholar
  7. Freney JR, Jacq VA, Baldensperger JF (1982) The significance of the biological sulfur cycle in rice production. Dev Plant Soil Sci 5:271–317Google Scholar
  8. Holzapfel-Pschorn A, Seiler W (1986) Methane emission during a cultivation period from an Italian rice paddy. J Geophys Res 91:11803–11814Google Scholar
  9. Holzapfel-Pschorn A, Conrad R, Seiler W (1985) Production, oxidation and emission of methane in rice paddies. FEMS Microbial Ecol 31:343–351Google Scholar
  10. Holzapfel-Pschorn A, Conrad R, Seiler W (1986) Effects of vegetation on the emission of methane from submerged paddy soils. Plant and Soil 92:223–233Google Scholar
  11. International Rice Research Institute (1988) Worldwide rice statistics 1987. IRRI, Los Baños, PhilippinesGoogle Scholar
  12. Knowles R (1979) Denitrification, acetylene reduction, and methane metabolism in lake sediment exposed to acetylene. Appl Environ Microbiol 38:486–493Google Scholar
  13. Kristjansson JK, Schonheit P, Thauer RK (1982) Different K s values for hydrogen and methanogenic and sulfate-reducing bacteria: An explanation for the apparent inhibition of methanogenesis by sulfate. Arch Microbiol 131:278–282Google Scholar
  14. Lindau CW, Bollich PK, DeLaune RD, Patrick WH Jr, Law VJ (1991) Effect of urea fertilizer and environmental factors on CH4 emission from a Louisiana, USA rice field. Plant and Soil 136:195–203Google Scholar
  15. Patrick WH Jr, DeLaune RD (1977) Chemical and biological redox systems affecting mutrient availability in coastal wetlands. Geosci Manage 18:131–137Google Scholar
  16. Reddy KR, Patrick WH Jr (1984) Nitrogen transformations and loss in flooded soils and sediments. CRC Crit Rev Environ Control 13:274–309Google Scholar
  17. Ryden JC, Rolston DE (1983) The measurement of denitrification. In: Freney JR, Sampson JR (eds) Gaseous loss of nitrogen from plant—soil systems. Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W Junk publishers, The Hague, pp 91–132Google Scholar
  18. SAS Institute (1988) SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03 edn. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  19. Sass RL, Fisher FM, Harcombe PA (1990) Methane production and emission in a Texas rice field. Global Biogeochem Cycles 4:47–68Google Scholar
  20. Schutz H, Holzapfel-Pschorn A, Conrad R, Rennenberg H, Seiler W (1989) A 3-year continuous record on the influence of daytime, season, and fertilizer treatment on methane emission rates from an Italian rice paddy. J Geophy Res 94:16405–16416Google Scholar
  21. Seiler W, Holzapfel-Pschorn A, Conrad R, Scharffe D (1984) Methane emission from rice paddies. J Atmos Chem 1:241–268Google Scholar
  22. United States Envrionmental Protection Agency (1990) Overview of methane's contribution to global warming. In: Methane emissions and opportunities for control. USEPA/Air and Radiation, EPA/400/9-90-007, Washington, DC, pp 2–24Google Scholar
  23. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1991) Introduction. In: Braatz BV, Hogan KB (eds) Substainable rice productivity and methane reduction research plan. USEPA/Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC, pp 12–18Google Scholar
  24. Van Breeman N, Feijtel TCJ (1990) Soil processes and properties involved in the production of greenhouse gases, with special relevance to soil taxonomic systems. In: Bouwmann AF (ed) Soils and the greenhouse effect. John Wiley, Chichester, pp 195–223Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. W. Lindau
    • 1
  • P. K. Bollich
    • 2
  • R. D. DeLaune
    • 1
  • A. R. Mosier
    • 3
  • K. F. Bronson
    • 3
  1. 1.Wetland Biogeochemistry Institute and Nuclear Science CenterLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  2. 2.Rice Research StationLouisiana Experiment StationCrowleyUSA
  3. 3.Agriculture Research ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations