Methane flux measurements in rice by static flux chamber and eddy covariance

Abstract Understanding methane (CH4) fluxes from rice (Oryza sativa L.) at the field scale is paramount to reducing environmental impacts while ensuring global food security. Greenhouse gas (GHG) measurements at the plot scale using static flux chambers (SFC) have long informed the understanding of...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Michele L. Reba, Bryant N. Fong, Ishara Rijal, M. Arlene Adviento‐Borbe, Yin‐Lin Chiu, Joseph H. Massey
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2020-01-01
Series:Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20119
_version_ 1818953669636259840
author Michele L. Reba
Bryant N. Fong
Ishara Rijal
M. Arlene Adviento‐Borbe
Yin‐Lin Chiu
Joseph H. Massey
author_facet Michele L. Reba
Bryant N. Fong
Ishara Rijal
M. Arlene Adviento‐Borbe
Yin‐Lin Chiu
Joseph H. Massey
author_sort Michele L. Reba
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Understanding methane (CH4) fluxes from rice (Oryza sativa L.) at the field scale is paramount to reducing environmental impacts while ensuring global food security. Greenhouse gas (GHG) measurements at the plot scale using static flux chambers (SFC) have long informed the understanding of flux dynamics and have largely been the basis of global flux estimates. However, in many parts of the world, the landscapes where agricultural fluxes are generated come from larger fields. Eddy covariance (EC) can measure trace gases on larger fields, but there are few studies available quantifying CH4 emissions under typical practices at a field scale. Furthermore, few of these studies are from the U.S. Midsouth, the largest producer of U.S. rice. This study compares and quantifies field‐scale SFC and EC flux measurements on a large commercial system in northeastern Arkansas during the 2015 and 2016 growing seasons, following typical producer practices. Daily measured SFC CH4 fluxes did not differ from EC‐daily CH4 fluxes (p = .108). Total season CH4 emissions, calculated as the sum of daily fluxes ranged from 50 to 156 kg CH4 ha−1 season−1, with SFC reporting greater emissions than EC. Although SFC and EC‐daily flux measurements were similar early (p = .382) and late (p = .543) in the season, they differed mid‐season (p < .001) with SFC consistently reporting greater fluxes than EC. The findings of this study help unify season long plot‐scale and field‐scale flux measurements and signify an advancement of our understanding of GHG fluxes from rice systems.
first_indexed 2024-12-20T10:09:57Z
format Article
id doaj.art-3005fe507a0242e48292284bb55f9aaa
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2639-6696
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-20T10:09:57Z
publishDate 2020-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment
spelling doaj.art-3005fe507a0242e48292284bb55f9aaa2022-12-21T19:44:11ZengWileyAgrosystems, Geosciences & Environment2639-66962020-01-0131n/an/a10.1002/agg2.20119Methane flux measurements in rice by static flux chamber and eddy covarianceMichele L. Reba0Bryant N. Fong1Ishara Rijal2M. Arlene Adviento‐Borbe3Yin‐Lin Chiu4Joseph H. Massey5USDA‐ARS‐Delta Water Management Research Unit 504 University Loop East Jonesboro AR 72401 USAUSDA‐ARS‐Delta Water Management Research Unit 504 University Loop East Jonesboro AR 72401 USAArkansas Biosciences Institute Arkansas State Univ., State University P.O. Box 639, 72467 AR USAUSDA‐ARS‐Delta Water Management Research Unit 504 University Loop East Jonesboro AR 72401 USAUSDA‐ARS‐Delta Water Management Research Unit 504 University Loop East Jonesboro AR 72401 USAUSDA‐ARS‐Delta Water Management Research Unit 504 University Loop East Jonesboro AR 72401 USAAbstract Understanding methane (CH4) fluxes from rice (Oryza sativa L.) at the field scale is paramount to reducing environmental impacts while ensuring global food security. Greenhouse gas (GHG) measurements at the plot scale using static flux chambers (SFC) have long informed the understanding of flux dynamics and have largely been the basis of global flux estimates. However, in many parts of the world, the landscapes where agricultural fluxes are generated come from larger fields. Eddy covariance (EC) can measure trace gases on larger fields, but there are few studies available quantifying CH4 emissions under typical practices at a field scale. Furthermore, few of these studies are from the U.S. Midsouth, the largest producer of U.S. rice. This study compares and quantifies field‐scale SFC and EC flux measurements on a large commercial system in northeastern Arkansas during the 2015 and 2016 growing seasons, following typical producer practices. Daily measured SFC CH4 fluxes did not differ from EC‐daily CH4 fluxes (p = .108). Total season CH4 emissions, calculated as the sum of daily fluxes ranged from 50 to 156 kg CH4 ha−1 season−1, with SFC reporting greater emissions than EC. Although SFC and EC‐daily flux measurements were similar early (p = .382) and late (p = .543) in the season, they differed mid‐season (p < .001) with SFC consistently reporting greater fluxes than EC. The findings of this study help unify season long plot‐scale and field‐scale flux measurements and signify an advancement of our understanding of GHG fluxes from rice systems.https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20119
spellingShingle Michele L. Reba
Bryant N. Fong
Ishara Rijal
M. Arlene Adviento‐Borbe
Yin‐Lin Chiu
Joseph H. Massey
Methane flux measurements in rice by static flux chamber and eddy covariance
Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment
title Methane flux measurements in rice by static flux chamber and eddy covariance
title_full Methane flux measurements in rice by static flux chamber and eddy covariance
title_fullStr Methane flux measurements in rice by static flux chamber and eddy covariance
title_full_unstemmed Methane flux measurements in rice by static flux chamber and eddy covariance
title_short Methane flux measurements in rice by static flux chamber and eddy covariance
title_sort methane flux measurements in rice by static flux chamber and eddy covariance
url https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20119
work_keys_str_mv AT michelelreba methanefluxmeasurementsinricebystaticfluxchamberandeddycovariance
AT bryantnfong methanefluxmeasurementsinricebystaticfluxchamberandeddycovariance
AT ishararijal methanefluxmeasurementsinricebystaticfluxchamberandeddycovariance
AT marleneadvientoborbe methanefluxmeasurementsinricebystaticfluxchamberandeddycovariance
AT yinlinchiu methanefluxmeasurementsinricebystaticfluxchamberandeddycovariance
AT josephhmassey methanefluxmeasurementsinricebystaticfluxchamberandeddycovariance