Advertisement

Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems

, Volume 58, Issue 1–3, pp 367–375 | Cite as

Methane Transport Capacity of Rice Plants. II. Variations Among Different Rice Cultivars and Relationship with Morphological Characteristics

  • M.S. Aulakh
  • J. Bodenbender
  • R. Wassmann
  • H. Rennenberg
Article

Abstract

Of the total methane (CH4) emitted from a rice field during the growing season 60–90% is emitted through the rice plants. We determined the methane transport capacity (MTC) of rice plants at different physiological growth stages using an automatic measuring system under greenhouse conditions. A total of 12 cultivars (10 inbred varieties and 2 hybrids) were studied in sets of two experiments and was distinguished into three groups according to the patterns of MTC development. MTC is generally increasing from seedling stage to panicle initiation (PI), but differs in the development from PI to maturity. While the hybrid showed a gradual increase in MTC, the inbred cultivars showed either minor changes in MTC or a drastic decrease from flowering to maturity. Among tall cultivars, Dular showed the highest MTC, followed by B40; the lowest MTC was found in Intan. High-yielding dwarf cultivars showed MTC in the descending order of IR72 > IR52 > IR64 > PSBRc 20. New plant type cultivars showed very low MTC with IR65600 exhibiting the smallest MTC at PI, flowering, and maturity. Hybrids (Magat and APHR 2) showed the largest MTC that continued to increased with plant growth. The MTC patterns were attributed to growth parameters and the development of morphological characteristics of the aerenchyma. These results suggest that in tall, dwarf, and NPT cultivars, increase in root or aboveground biomass during initial growth determines a corresponding increase in MTC. Once aerenchyma has fully developed, further increase in plant biomass would not influence MTC. However, in the case of hybrids, a positive relationship of MTC with root + shoot biomass (r = 0.672, p ≥ 0.05) and a total plant biomass including grain (r = 0.849, p ≥ 0.01) indicate continuous development of aerenchyma with plant growth, resulting in enhanced MTC. In all cultivars, tiller number, but not height, was linearly related to MTC, indicating that the number of outlets/channels rather than plant size/biomass determines the transport of CH4. These results clearly demonstrate that rice cultivars differ significantly in MTC. Therefore, the use of high-yielding cultivars with low MTC (for example, PSBRc 20, IR65598, and IR65600) could be an economically feasible, environmentally sound, and promising approach to mitigate CH4 emissions from rice fields.

plant-mediated gas transfer methane emissions rice cultivars rhizosphere automated methane measurements plant growth stages global warming greenhouse effects plant biomass plant tillers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adhya TK, Rath AK, Gupta PK, Rao VR, Das SN, Parida KM, Parashar DC & Sethunathan N (1994) Methane emission from flooded rice fields under irrigated conditions. Biol Fertil Soils 18: 245–248.Google Scholar
  2. Aulakh MS, Bodenbender J, Wassmann R & Rennenberg H (2000) Methane transport capacity of rice plants. I. Influence of CH4 concentration and growth stage analyzed with an automated measuring system. Nutr Cycling Agroecosyst (this issue)Google Scholar
  3. Bartolome VI, Casumpang RM, Ynalvez MAH, Olea AB & McLaren CG (1999) IRRISTAT for Windows-statistical software for agricultural research. Biometrics, International Rice Research Institute, Makati City, Philippines.Google Scholar
  4. Butterbach-Bahl K, Papen H & Rennenberg H (1997) Impact of gas transport through rice cultivars on methane emission from paddy fields. Plant Cell Environ 20: 1175–1183Google Scholar
  5. Cicerone RJ, Shetter JD (1981) Sources of atmospheric methane: measurements in rice paddies and a discussion. J Geophys Res 86: 7203–7209Google Scholar
  6. Cochran WG & Cox GM (1950). Experimental Designs. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Gomez KA (1972) Techniques for field experiments with rice. International Rice Research Institute, Makati City, PhilippinesGoogle Scholar
  8. Holzapfel-Pschorn A, Conrad R & Seiler W (1986) Effects of vegetation on the emission of methane from submerged paddy soil. Plant Soil 92: 223–391Google Scholar
  9. Holzapfel-Pschorn A, Seiler W (1986) Methane emission during a cultivation period from an Italian rice paddy. J Geophy Res 91: 11803–11814Google Scholar
  10. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (1992) Climate Change: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment Houghton JT, Callander BA, Varney SK (eds) IPCC, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (1995) Climate Change: The Science of Climate Change Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG, Callander BA, Harris N, Kattenberg A & Maskell K (eds) IPCC, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Kesheng S & Zhen L (1997) Effect of rice cultivars and fertilizer management on methane emission in a rice paddy in Beijing. Nutr Cycling Agroecosyst 49: 139–146Google Scholar
  13. Leon JC & Carpena AL (1995) Morphology-based diversity analysis of improved irrigated lowland rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties in the Philippines. Philipp J Crop Sci 20(2): 113–121Google Scholar
  14. Lin E (1993) Agricultural techniques: factors controlling methane emissions. In: Gao L, Wu L, Zheng D & Ham X (eds) Proceedings of the International Symposium on Climate Change, Natural Disasters, and Agricultural Strategies, p120–126. China Meteorological Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  15. Minoda T & Kimura M (1994) Contribution of photosynthesized carbon to the methane emitted from paddy fields. Geophys Res Lett 21: 2007–2010.Google Scholar
  16. Mitra S, Jain MC, Kumar S, Bandyopadhya SK & Kalra N (1999) Effect of rice cultivars on methane emission. Agric Ecosyst Environ 73: 177–183Google Scholar
  17. Neue HU & Sass R (1998) The budget of methane from rice fields. IGACtivities 17: 3–11Google Scholar
  18. Sass RL, Fisher FM, Harcombe PA & Turner FT (1991) Mitigation of methane emission from rice fields: effect of incorporated rice straw. Global Biogeochem Cycles 5: 275–288Google Scholar
  19. Shalini S, Kumar S & Jain MC (1997) Methane emission from two Indian soils planted with different rice cultivars. Biol Fertil Soils 25: 285–289Google Scholar
  20. Sigren LK, Byrd GT, Fisher FM & Sass RL (1997) Comparison of soil acetate concentrations and methane production, transport, and emission in two rice cultivars. Global Biogeochem Cycles 11: 1–14Google Scholar
  21. Wang B, Neue HU & Samonte HP (1997) Effect of cultivar difference ('IR72', IR65598’ and ‘Dular’) on methane emission. Agric Ecosyst Environ 62: 31–40Google Scholar
  22. Wassmann R & Aulakh MS (2000) The role of rice plants in regulating mechanisms of methane emissions. Biol Fertil Soils 31:20–29Google Scholar
  23. Wassmann R, Neue HU, Alberto MCR, Lantin RS, Bueno C, Llenaresas D, Arah JRM, Papen H, Seiler W & Rennenberg H (1996) Fluxes and pools of methane in wetland rice soils with varying organic inputs. Environ Monitor Assess 42: 163–173Google Scholar
  24. Watanabe A, Kajiwara M, Tashiro T & Kimura M (1995) Influence of rice cultivar on methane emission from paddy fields. Plant Soil 17: 51–56 376Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • M.S. Aulakh
    • 1
  • J. Bodenbender
    • 2
  • R. Wassmann
    • 1
    • 2
  • H. Rennenberg
    • 2
  1. 1.International Rice Research InstituteMakati CityPhilippines
  2. 2.Fraunhofer Institute for Atmospheric Environmental ResearchGarmisch-PartenkirchenGermany

Personalised recommendations