Soil Science and Plant Nutrition

ISSN: 0038-0768 (Print) 1747-0765 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tssp20

Effects of alternate wetting and drying technique

on greenhouse gas emissions from irrigated rice
paddy in Central Luzon, Philippines

Evangeline B. Sibayan, Kristine Samoy-Pascual, Filomena S. Grospe, Mark

Everson D. Casil, Takeshi Tokida, Agnes T. Padre & Kazunori Minamikawa

To cite this article: Evangeline B. Sibayan, Kristine Samoy-Pascual, Filomena S. Grospe,

Mark Everson D. Casil, Takeshi Tokida, Agnes T. Padre & Kazunori Minamikawa (2018)
Effects of alternate wetting and drying technique on greenhouse gas emissions from irrigated
rice paddy in Central Luzon, Philippines, Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 64:1, 39-46, DOI:
10.1080/00380768.2017.1401906

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2017.1401906

View supplementary material Published online: 13 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 687

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tssp20
SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT NUTRITION, 2018
VOL. 64, NO. 1, 39–46
https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2017.1401906

Effects of alternate wetting and drying technique on greenhouse gas emissions

from irrigated rice paddy in Central Luzon, Philippines
Evangeline B. Sibayana, Kristine Samoy-Pascuala, Filomena S. Grospea, Mark Everson D. Casila, Takeshi Tokidac,
Agnes T. Padreb and Kazunori Minamikawac
a
Rice Engineering and Mechanization Division, Philippine Rice Research Institute, Central Experiment Station, Science City of Munoz 3119,
Maligaya, Philippines; bCrop and Environmental Sciences Division, International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines; cInstitute for Agro-
Environmental Sciences, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization, Tsukuba, Japan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Alternate wetting and drying (AWD) technique has been widely reported to reduce methane (CH4) Received 26 April 2017
emission from irrigated rice paddies. However, little is known about its feasibility in an environment that Accepted 3 November 2017
has distinct weather conditions involving tropical wet season (WS). To investigate the AWD’s feasibility KEY WORDS
in terms of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions both in dry season (DS) and WS, 3-year field Alternate wetting and
experiments were conducted in Central Luzon, Philippines. Three treatments of water management drying (AWD); methane;
were continuous flooding (CF), flooding when surface water level naturally declines to 15 cm below the multiple aeration; nitrous
soil surface (AWD), and site-specific AWD that modified the criteria of soil drying (AWDS). Methane and oxide; rice
nitrous oxide (N2O) fluxes were measured using a closed chamber method, and the global warming
potential (GWP) of the two GHGs was calculated. Rice grain yield did not significantly differ among
treatments. In accordance with the previous findings, the seasonal total CH4 emission was significantly
greater in WS than in DS. The effect of treatment was significant, but the reduction rate by AWD was
just 1.7% compared to CF. The seasonal total N2O emission was significantly affected by cropping
season and treatment. The AWD increased the N2O emission by 97%, especially in DS. The resultant
GWP did not significantly differ among three treatments. The results indicate that the AWD and AWDS
with the current settings were insufficient to reduce the annual GHG emissions in this site. However,
fragmentary results obtained in the last DS suggest that an earlier rice residue incorporation and
keeping dry soil conditions in the preceding fallow season is effective in reducing CH4 emission in
combination with an earlier implementation of AWD.

1. Introduction greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, especially methane (CH4)

from flooded soils (Inubushi et al. 2001; Corton et al. 2000).
Rice is the most important staple food in the Philippines. The
Several studies have shown that rice production from
area harvested to rice is about 4.5 M ha, of which 2.7 M ha are
flooded soils enhanced the production of CH4 (e.g., Singh
irrigated (Moog 2005). Much of the country’s irrigated rice is
et al. 2003; Van Der Gon et al. 2002; Bharati et al. 2001).
grown in the Central Plain of Luzon – rice granary of the
Flooding rice fields blocks oxygen penetration into the soil,
country, which accounts for 20% of the total national rice
which is favorable for CH4 production and emission especially
production as of 2015 (DA-Department of Agriculture 2016).
in the tropics (Rath et al. 2000). Reduction in CH4 emissions
In the typical irrigated rice cultivation, rice seedlings are trans-
from irrigated rice fields has been reported from multiple
planted in puddled and bunded fields which are continuously
aeration of soil by alternate wetting and drying (AWD), single
flooded throughout the growing season (Koidi et al. 2013). It is
aeration in mid-season (Zou et al. 2005; Wassmann et al. 2000;
grown mostly with supplemental irrigation (e.g., using shallow
Corton et al. 2000), and crop residue management (Sander
tube well) when rainfall is not sufficient in the wet season (WS)
et al. 2014; Yagi et al. 1997; Knoblauch et al. 2011). However,
whereas depends entirely on irrigation in the dry season (DS)
Wassmann et al. (2004) reported a large fluctuation in CH4
(Bouman et al. 2007). With increasing population of the coun-
emission reductions from 7% to 80% by modifying water
try with an average rate of 2% per annum (PhilRice-Philippine
management, and suggested number of constraints due to
Rice Research Institute 2011), rice production is expected to
an inverse effect on nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. The N2O is
move toward rice intensification in terms of (1) increased
produced through soil microbial processes, such as nitrifica-
cropping per year, (2) use of high-input technologies (Corton
tion and denitrification (Zou et al. 2005). Several studies
et al. 2000), and (3) increased cropping intensity (i.e., the ratio
showed that N2O fluxes increased with the timing of drainage
of effective area harvested to the physical area). However, the
period after nitrogen (N) fertilizer application, and with the
trade-off result for rice intensification is the increase in
rate of N applied (Ly et al. 2014; Sander et al. 2014; Corton

CONTACT Kristine Samoy-Pascual ks.pascual@philrice.gov.ph Rice Engineering and Mechanization Division, Philippine Rice Research Institute, Central
Experiment Station, Science City of Munoz 3119, Maligaya, Nueva Ecija, Philippines
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
© 2017 Japanese Society of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition
40 E. B. SIBAYAN ET AL.
et al. 2000). The trade-off relationship between CH4 and N2O
emissions resulting from AWD or mid-season drainage in irri-
gated rice fields has also been well studied (Cai et al. 1997;
Zou et al. 2005).
The Philippines has a tropical climate dominated by WS
and DS. It is characterized by four climate types in terms of the
relative duration and intensity of dry and wet periods. In most
part of Luzon, the climate is very pronounced and distinct with
the DS, which generally begins in November and ends in April.
During WS, rainfall is heavy from May to October. Nelson et al.
(2015) reported in their modeling study that AWD would be
feasible in WS in case of Cagayan, Philippines. Corton et al.
(2000) reported greater CH4 emissions in WS than in DS from a
long-term field experiment in Central Luzon, Philippines.
However, very little is known about the difference in the effect
of AWD in reducing CH4 emissions between WS and DS in
Central Luzon, Philippines.
Irrigated rice fields share many traits, and their contribu-
tions to CH4 and N2O emissions can differ markedly due to the
variations in local temperatures, soil properties, crop manage-
ment, and resultant rice growth (Rath et al. 2000; Chidthaisong
et al. 1996). Therefore, the objectives of this field monitoring
study were (1) to evaluate the feasibility of AWD in reducing
CH4 emission during two distinct rice seasons in Central
Luzon, Philippines, and (2) to determine a suitable water
management for reducing CH4 and N2O emissions and saving
water without compromising grain yields from irrigated rice
fields in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Site description
Field experimental site was established at the Central
Experiment Station (Block 6, Lot 5) of the Philippine Rice
Research Institute located in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines
(15°40ʹ N, 120°53ʹ E) during three DSs (December–April) and
three WSs (June–September) from 2014 to 2016. The province
of Nueva Ecija is located at the Central Plain of Luzon. The
climate is tropical with two distinct weather conditions, DS
and WS, with mean annual rainfall of 1941 mm year−1, mean
air temperature of 27.6°C, relative humidity of 82.4%, and solar
radiation of 20.6 MJ m−2 day−1 (Lampayan et al. 2015). The
study site is fully irrigated and planted twice a year. The source
of irrigation comes from a shallow tube well nearby. The soil is
classified as fine montmorillonitic, isohyperthermic Ustic
Epiaquerts (USDA classification). It is derived from alluvium
parent material and is poorly drained (Corton et al. 2000).
Table 1 shows the soil properties of the experimental site.
2.2. Experimental design
The experimental factor was water management with three
treatments and four replications. A randomized block design
was used to arrange the field layout with each plot of
6 m × 6 m. The treatments were (1) continuous flooding
(CF), (2) safe AWD (AWD), and (3) site-specific AWD (AWDS).
Hereafter, positive values of surface water level indicate water
depth on the soil surface, whereas negative values indicate
Table 1. Soil properties of the experimental site.
Parameters Values
Soil texture Clay
Clay (%) 46.2
Sand (%) 21.7
Silt (%) 32.1
pH (H2O) 7.0
OC (g kg−1) 14.0
Total N (g kg−1) 1.4
C/N 11.8
Active Fe (g kg−1) 12.6
Mn (g kg−1) 0.7
water depth below the soil surface. The plot for each treat-
ment was fixed throughout the conduct of the study.
In CF, 1–5 cm surface water level was maintained until
1–2 weeks before harvest. Surface water level in AWD and
AWDS was monitored using a preinstalled field water tube
made of PVC pipe (Lampayan et al. 2015). When the water
level was naturally declined to a threshold level, the plot was
irrigated up to 5 cm. The threshold level of −15 cm has been
identified as safe AWD as this will not cause any reduction in
rice yield (Bouman et al. 2007). In AWD treatment, when the
water level declined to −15 cm, the plot was irrigated up to
5 cm. The AWDS was tested in two different ways to examine
the effects of soil drying strength on the reduction of CH4. In
2014, the AWDS was a single aeration as the mid-season
drainage, where the surface water was drained for 7–10 days
before rice panicle initiation. In 2015 and 2016, AWDS was so-
called AWD at −25 cm, that is, the plot is irrigated when the
water level declines to −25 cm. For 2014 and 2015, both AWD
and AWDS were imposed 21 days after transplanting (DAT)
based on the recommendation by Bouman et al. (2007).
However, in 2016DS, AWD and AWDS were started from 10
DAT to achieve drier soil condition. In all the three treatments,
the plots were irrigated 3–5 cm water level just before N
fertilizer application and during rice flowering stage to avoid
spikelet sterility. The terminal drainage was conducted
1–2 weeks before harvest.
2.3. Crop management
Crop management practices followed the recommendations
from the PalayCheck System®(PhilRice 2007) and summarized
in Table S1. Before starting the field experiment, the field was
tilled and rice stubbles were incorporated just after harvest of
the previous crop as customary practice at PhilRice farm. The
field was tilled again several weeks before transplanting for
2014DS to establish the new field layout. Bunds and canals
were constructed in between plots, and plastic linings were
installed along the bund at 40 cm depth in each plot to
prevent water seepage between treatments. In the following
seasons, rice stubbles from the previous crop (~40 cm height)
were incorporated several weeks before transplanting during
the first plowing. In 2016DS, the field was plowed earlier than
the previous seasons (i.e., only 10 days after the 2015WS
harvest) under dry soil conditions to test the effect of this
change on mitigating the high CH4 fluxes that were observed
at the early stage in the previous years.

Twenty-one-day-old rice seedlings of an inbred variety
(NSIC Rc238) were manually transplanted at two to three
seedlings per hill in 20 cm × 20 cm spacing. Surface water
level was maintained at 1–3 cm from transplanting to 21 DAT,
except for 2016DS where the plots were flooded until 10 DAT
(i.e., another change employed for the CH4 mitigation).
Thereafter, the water level was raised to 5 cm, and AWD and
AWDS were started. A total of 120 and 90 kg ha−1 of N
fertilizer was applied during DS and WS, respectively, in
three equal splits into basal application (0 DAT), topdressing
in the mid-tillering stage (25–26 DAT), and in the panicle
initiation stage (44–46 DAT). Phosphorous and potassium
were applied each at a rate of 40 kg ha−1 during the land
preparation in both seasons. A compound fertilizer (14-14-14)
was used for basal application and urea (46-0-0) for topdres-
sing. Preemergence herbicide and pesticide were applied 3
DAT in 2014DS. Postemergence herbicide was applied 22 DAT
in 2015WS.
2.4. Measurements
Rice grain yield was determined from a 5 m2 crop cut at the
center of each plot. The harvested rice was threshed, cleaned,
dried, and weighed. The moisture content of the grains was
measured using a digital moisture meter, and grain yield was
calculated at 14% moisture content. Weather data (daily rain-
fall, and daily maximum and minimum air temperatures) were
collected from an automatic weather station adjacent to the
experimental area.
Field water tubes were used as observation wells to moni-
tor the surface water level in each plot. Using a ruler, the water
level was manually measured once a day between 0800 and
0900 h. A 3-in. diameter of calibrated analog flow meter was
installed in the irrigation pump, and was used to monitor the
volume of irrigation water to each plot. The seasonal water
use per plot was calculated as the sum of all irrigation applied
and rainfall from transplanting to 1–2 weeks before the
expected time of harvest.
Gas fluxes were measured at three points in each plot using
a manually operated closed chamber method as described by
Minamikawa et al. (2015). To avoid soil disturbance and artifi-
cial CH4 ebullition during gas sampling, wooden scaffoldings
were preinstalled in each plot. The base chambers were made
of transparent, solid polycarbonate sheet with 48 cm diameter
and 20 cm height. Each chamber covers four rice hills, but it is
noted that the round-shape area covered may have under-
estimated the CH4 flux from 40 cm × 40 cm space during
flooded periods by 12.5% because CH4 is mainly emitted
through rice plants. Three base chambers were installed
10 cm depth into the soil 1 day before the first gas sampling
to stabilize the soil, and then remained throughout the crop-
ping season (CS). A 15-cm extension chamber, which was
mounted on the base chamber, was used when the height
of rice plants became high. The top chamber is a white plastic
pail made of polypropylene with a volume of 108 L, equipped
inside with a small fan, thermometer, vent with stopper, and a
gas sampling port.
Regular gas sampling was conducted weekly until harvest.
Additional gas samplings were performed at 1, 3, and 5 days
SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT NUTRITION 41
after N fertilizer application to capture temporal high N2O
fluxes. Five gas samples were collected using a 60-ml plastic
syringe during 30-min chamber deployment (0, 6, 12, 20, and
30 min), and transferred into a 30-ml evacuated glass vial with
butyl rubber stopper and screw cap. The concentrations of
CH4 and N2O in the samples were then analyzed using a gas
chromatograph (8610C, SRI Instruments, Torrance, CA, USA)
equipped with flame ionization detector (FID) and electron
capture detector (ECD), respectively. The carrier gas for both
detectors was dinitrogen with a flow rate of 60 mL min−1. The
column used for CH4 and N2O analyses was Porapak Q (50–80
mesh). Detector temperature was set at 350°C for the FID and
at 330°C for the ECD. The GC was calibrated for CH4 using
standard gas concentrations of 2, 5, and 10 ppm, and for N2O
using 0.3, 0.5, and 1.0 ppm. The detection limits of the flux
measurements were 0.283 and 0.143 mg m−2 h−1 for CH4 and
N2O, respectively.
The gas fluxes were calculated based on a linear regression
using the equations given in Minamikawa et al. (2015).
Seasonal cumulative CH4 and N2O emissions were estimated
using a trapezoidal integration method (i.e., linear interpola-
tion and numerical integration between sampling times).
The global warming potential (GWP), CO2-equivalent cumu-
lative emission of CH4 and N2O, was calculated using the
IPCC’s GWPs for 100-year time horizon with inclusion of cli-
mate-carbon feedbacks (IPCC 2014; 34 for CH4 and 298 for
N2O). The yield-scaled GWP was calculated by dividing GWP
over grain yields. The water productivity (WP), the weight of
grain yield over the total volume of water used (irrigation and
rainfall) from transplanting to 1–2 weeks before the expected
time of harvest, was calculated.
Soil organic carbon and total nitrogen were analyzed by a
dry combustion method. Soil samples were taken from two
depths (0–10 and 10–20 cm) in each plot before the experi-
ment as the initial data and after 2014WS, whereas from one
depth (0–20 cm) after 2015WS, 2016DS, and 2016WS. The
analysis was conducted at the International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI) in Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.
2.5. Statistical analysis
Analysis of variance was conducted using a split-plot design,
where CS was treated as the whole-plot factor and treatment
(water management: CF, AWD, AWDS) as the split-plot factor,
with four replications. To test differences between DS and WS,
the sums of squares for the whole-plot components were
separated into the following sources of variation: between
DS and WS (DW), within DS, and within WS. For the split-plot
factors, the main effect of water treatment (T) and its interac-
tion with CS were examined. The sums of squares of the
interaction term (T × CS) were also separated into the follow-
ing sources of variation: T × DW, T × DS, T × WS. Because the
emissions of CH4 and N2O showed highly skewed distributions
and violated normality and homoscedasticity assumptions, the
Box–Cox transformation was conducted for CH4, N2O, GWP,
and yield-scaled GWP using the ‘powerTransform’ function in
the ‘car’ package of R (Box and Cox 1964; Fox and Weisberg
2011). To test differences among T, Tukey’s HSD test was
performed with a significance level of 0.05.
42 E. B. SIBAYAN ET AL.

3. Results In addition, the total water use in WS was significantly higher

(by 27%) than that in DS due to the greater rainfall. The
3.1. Weather and the irrigation water
amount of rainfall in WS accounted for 60–100% of the total
The amount and pattern of rainfall were distinctly different water use.
between DS and WS (Figs. 1A–C and 2A–C). Rainfall in DS was
negligible, while the total rainfall in WS ranged from 674 to
923 mm season−1. Seasonal variation pattern in air tempera-
3.2. CH4 emission
ture was generally similar between DS and WS (Figs. 1D–F and
2D–F). The mean minimum and maximum air temperatures in The seasonal variation pattern and magnitude of CH4 fluxes
WS were 2.7°C and 0.7°C higher than those in DS, respectively. differed between the two seasons (Figs. 1J–L and 2J–L).
On the other hand, daily solar radiation and sunshine duration There were large peaks of CH4 fluxes at the early growth
in DS were 11% and 40% higher than those in WS, respectively stage of rice plants in three consecutive seasons, 2014WS,
(data not shown). 2015DS, and 2015WS (Figs. 1K and 2K). In contrast, there
Surface water level under AWD and AWDS was better were no such peaks in 2016DS (Fig. 1L), in which a series of
managed in DS than in WS (Figs. 1G–I and 2G–I) due to no field management practices were modified from the pre-
interruptions by rainfall. However, the water level under CF in vious crops (see Section 2.3 for detail). The resultant seaso-
DS occasionally reached 0 cm, and the mean water level until nal variation pattern was distinctly different between CF
the terminal drainage ranged from 2.1 to 3.6 cm compared to and others.
from 3.4 to 4.0 cm in WS. In addition, the water level under There was significant difference in the seasonal total
AWD and AWDS often declined to be negative after N top- CH4 emission among the six seasons, especially between
dressing in DS. DS and WS (Table 2). The total CH4 emission in WS was 6.4
The total water use (i.e., irrigation and rainfall) was signifi- times greater than that in DS. The effect of treatment was
cantly reduced by AWD and AWDS compared to CF although significant and the total emission was smaller in AWD than
the efficiency of water savings differed between DS (43–52% in CF. The interaction between CS and treatment was sig-
reduction relative to CF) and WS (16–18%) (Table 2; see nificant due mainly to (1) the changes in field manage-
Table S2 for the detailed data in each season). The AWDS ment practices in 2016DS and (2) the field preparation
obtained higher irrigation water savings by 15% than AWD. before 2014DS.

2014DS 2015DS 2016DS

100
Temperature (°C) Rainfall (mm)

80 a b c
60
40
20
0
35 d Max Min e f
30
25
20
15
g h i
5
Water level (cm)

0
-5
-10
-15 CF
AWD
-20
AWDS
20
j k l
CH4 (mg CH4 m-2 h-1)

CF
15 AWD
AWDS
10

0
m n o DAT27
500
N2O (µg N m-2h-1)

AWD: 984
AWDS: 1144
400
300
200
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100
Days after transplanting

Figure 1. Seasonal variations in daily rainfall (A–C), daily maximum and minimum air temperature (D–F), mean surface water level (G–I), CH4 flux (J–L), and N2O flux
(M, N) for three water management practices in dry season (DS) of 2014, 2015, and 2016. Error bars for CH4 and N2O fluxes indicate the standard error (n = 4).
Vertical dotted lines indicate the application timing of nitrogen fertilizer. Gray areas in A–F indicate the lack of data observation.
 SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT NUTRITION 43

2014WS 2015WS 2016WS

100

Temperature (°C) Rainfall (mm)

80 a b c
60
40
20
0
35
30
25
20 d Max Min e f
15
g h i
5
Water level (cm)

0
-5
-10 CF
-15 AWD
-20 AWDS
100
j k l
CH4(mg CH4 m-2h-1)

80

60 CF
AWD
40 AWDS
20

0
m n o
250
N2O (µg N m-2h-1)

200
150
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100
Days after transplanting

Figure 2. Seasonal variations in daily rainfall (A–C), daily maximum and minimum air temperature (D–F), mean surface water level (G–I), CH4 flux (J–L), and N2O flux
(M, N) for three water management practices in wet season (WS) of 2014, 2015, and 2016. Error bars for CH4 and N2O fluxes indicate the standard error (n = 4).
Vertical dotted lines indicate the application timing of nitrogen fertilizer. Gray areas in A–F indicate the lack of data observation.

Table 2. Seasonal CH4 and N2O emissions, GWP, rice grain yield, yield-scaled GWP, total water use, and water productivity as affected by cropping season and water
management.
CH4 (kg N2O (kg N2O GWP (kg CO2 eq Grain yield Yield-scaled GWP (Mg Water use Water productivity
CH4 ha−1) ha−1) ha−1) (Mg ha−1) CO2 ha−1 Mg−1 grain) (m−3 ha−1) (kg m−3)
Treatment DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS
CF 69.9 328.9 1.60 0.509 2853 11,333 6.90 5.41 0.43 2.10 10,336 10,944 0.77 0.512
AWD 42.2 350.1 3.50 0.633 2476 12,093 6.88 5.83 0.37 2.14 5913 9215 1.18 0.645
AWDS 52.8 374.0 2.63 0.528 2578 12,874 6.90 5.42 0.41 2.46 5012 8949 1.43 0.615
Season mean 54.9 351.5 2.58 0.556 2636 12,100 6.89 5.55 0.40 2.23 7087 9702 1.13 0.590
Treatment means
CF 199.4 A 1.05 B 7093 A 6.16 A 1.27 A 10,640 A 0.642 B
AWD 196.1 B 2.07 A 7284 A 6.35 A 1.25 A 7564 B 0.914 A
AWDS 213.4 A 1.58 B 7725 A 6.16 A 1.43 A 6980 B 1.023 A
p-Value
Source of variation df
Cropping season (CS) 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Dry or Wet (DW)a 1 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Dry season (DS)a 2 *** 0.502 *** ** *** *** †
Wet season (WS)a 2 *** 0.383 *** † *** *** 0.134
Main plot error 15
Treatment (T) 2 * * 0.776 0.666 0.496 *** ***
T × CS 10 * 0.297 0.610 0.954 0.585 *** **
T × DWb 2 † 0.422 0.476 0.615 0.457 *** ***
T × DSb 4 * † 0.562 0.747 0.562 *** *
T × WSb 4 0.315 0.769 0.462 0.946 0.434 † 0.957
Split-plot error 36
Different characters indicate significant treatment differences. df: degrees of freedom.
a
Subdivision of variation among CSs.
b
Subdivision of variation among T × CS interactions.
†p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
44 E. B. SIBAYAN ET AL.
3.3. N2O emission
The seasonal variation pattern in N2O fluxes was sporadic
regardless of treatment through the six seasons (Figs. 1M–O
and 2M–O). There were occasionally large peaks after N ferti-
lizer topdressing and after the terminal drainage. In DS, the
peaks after N topdressing were especially high in the case of
unintended drained period for AWD and AWDS (Fig. 1M,O).
There was significant difference in the seasonal total N2O
emission among the six seasons, especially between DS and
WS (Table 2). The total N2O emission in DS was 4.6 times
greater than that in WS. The effect of treatment was also
significant and the total emission was 97% greater in AWD
than in CF.
3.4. GWP of CH4 and N2O
The effect of CS on the GWP of CH4 + N2O was significant
mainly due to the significant difference between DS and WS
(Table 2). The GWP in WS was 4.6 times greater than that in
DS. The average contribution of N2O to the total GWP under
the three water management was 33% during DS and only
2.1% during WS. Further, the fraction of N2O to the total GWP
increased from 17% under CF to 36% under AWD and AWDS
during DS. Consequently, the 39% CH4 reduction through
AWD was offset by more than 100% increase in N2O.
Reflecting the trade-off between CH4 and N2O, there was no
significant effect of treatment on the GWP.
3.5. Grain yield and the yield-related indices
Grain yield level was comparable to earlier reports for DS and
WS in Central Luzon (Corton et al. 2000; Lampayan et al. 2015).
The effect of CS was significant; and reflecting the higher solar
radiation, the yield in DS was 24% greater than that in WS
(Table 2). The grain yield was not significantly different among
treatments.
The effect of CS was significant on the yield-scaled GWP,
and it was 5.6 times greater in WS than in DS (Table 2). Water
productivity was significantly affected by CS and treatment
(Table 2). Their interaction was also significant due mainly to
the different responses of AWD and AWDS compared to CF
between DS and WS.
4. Discussion
4.1. Effects of CS on GHG emissions
Greater CH4 emissions in WS than those in DS observed in our
study confirmed the earlier report (Corton et al. 2000) showing
that CH4 emission in WS was two to three times greater than
that in DS. The greater emission in WS would be attributed to
three possible causes. First, higher air temperatures in WS than
in DS (Figs. 1D–F and 2D–F) can enhance the root exudates
released into the soil, which contribute to the pool of available
carbon substrates for methanogens (Allen et al. 2003; Tokida
et al. 2011). Second, the amount of crop residue incorporation
from the previous DS to WS was greater than the opposite, as
shown in the greater yield in DS (Table 2). Although smaller
rice biomass in WS could cause less CH4 emission through
providing limited substrate supply and emission pathway, the
greater residue incorporation would have provided a substan-
tial carbon substrate for rapid development of soil reductive
conditions and the resultant greater CH4 production (Gaihre
et al. 2016). Third, the considerable volume of rainfall in WS
resulted in longer flooding periods under CF than in DS (Figs.
1G–I and 2G–I). These would have contributed to the greater
CH4 emission in WS.
Smaller N2O emission in WS is partly explained by the
longer flooding period as the result of the greater rainfall.
This agrees with Padre et al. (2016), in which N2O emission
was minimal under CF. However, as argued later, the substan-
tial N2O emission after N fertilizer topdressing during the
temporal drained periods in DS (Fig. 1M,O) amplified the
difference between DS and WS.
4.2. Effects of water management on GHG emissions
The effect of treatment on the total CH4 emission was limited
than expected. This is mainly because of the substantial CH4
emission irrespective of treatments in WS. The implementation
of drainage under AWD and AWDS treatments was often
impossible in WS due to the intermittent heavy rainfall, caus-
ing no reduction of the CH4 emission by AWD and AWDS. In
addition, the initial high peaks observed in all water manage-
ment treatments in 2014WS and 2015WS masked the small
reduction in CH4 emission by AWD at later stages (Fig. 2J–K).
In DS, the significant difference was detected between CF
and AWD (Table 2). It should be noted that the CH4 emission
under CF was lowered due to temporal drained periods in
2014DS and 2015DS. If proper implementation of water man-
agement had been achieved under CF, the difference from
other treatments might have been more pronounced. The
AWDS did not work well for the CH4 reduction in DS despite
of the severe criterion of surface water level (−25 cm) set in
2015DS and 2016DS. This is because the decline in water level
in this site was gradual and interrupted by the requirement of
irrigation for N fertilizer topdressing (Fig. 1H,I). In 2014DS, a
single mid-season drainage was practiced as AWDS treatment,
but the reduction in the CH4 emission was limited compared
to AWD.
Minimizing the initial high peaks of CH4 flux observed both
in DS and WS is a plausible option to clearly detect the effect
of water management in this site. Because rice root system
would not be well established by then, ebullition was a plau-
sible pathway of the CH4 emission (Schutz et al. 1989).
Bronson et al. (1997) reported that CH4 production was
enhanced after an extended saturated soil condition. Corton
et al. (2000) observed the initial high peaks of CH4 flux at the
vegetative stage due to the anaerobic decomposition of rice
straw incorporated. However, as clearly observed in 2016DS
(Fig. 1I), the two additional practices, earlier implementation of
AWD drainage and an earlier implementation of fallow tillage
(i.e., residue incorporation) under dry soil conditions, can sup-
press the initial high peaks. The shallow dry tillage practiced
10 days after harvest of 2015WS would have enhanced the
decomposition of rice stubble/straw, leading to less carbon
substrates for CH4 production, as observed by Toma et al.

(2016). Sander et al. (2014) also reported that dry fallow with
tillage reduced the CH4 emission in the following rice growing
season as compared to dry fallow only.
The significant difference in the total N2O emission
between CF and AWD (Table 2) is mainly derived from a
typical trade-off relationship between CH4 and N2O associated
with paddy water management. The early drainage or soil
drying after only a few days of N application resulted in high
N2O emissions due to dry conditions in DS, although, the
Philippines’ recommendation during fertilizer application is
to maintain 3–5 cm ponded water. As observed in many
previous field studies (e.g., Bronson et al. 1997; Sander et al.
2014; Sun et al. 2016; Tariq et al. 2017), substantial N2O fluxes
were often observed after N fertilizer topdressing during tem-
poral drained periods under AWD and AWDS, especially for
DS. In other words, as reported by Zou et al. (2005), keeping
flooded soil conditions could minimize the N2O flux peaks
observed after the topdressing.
4.3. Feasibility of AWD in terms of rice productivity,
water use, and GHG emissions
The implementation of AWD and AWDS with the current
criteria does not reduce rice grain yield in this site. Bouman
et al. (2007) and Lampayan et al. (2015) suggest that there is
no yield penalty under the AWD that rice field is irrigated
whenever surface water level declines to 15–20 cm below
the soil surface. This study confirmed their suggestions from
the 3-year field trial.
The AWD and AWDS reduce the total water use and thus
increase WP compared to CF both in DS and WS of this site.
Although not significantly different from AWD, the WP of AWDS
was higher due to its relatively high grain yields and lower total
water input from irrigation and rainfall relative to CF especially
in DS. The concept of WP becomes more important when water
is scarce (Bouman et al. 2007) and expensive by a power-driven
irrigation. The WP under CF was within the range of reported
values in the Philippines (Bouman and Tuong 2001). However,
the WP under AWD was relatively high compared to the
reported values in the same site (Lampayan et al. 2015). This
difference could be attributed to the different age of rice seed-
lings transplanted in the earlier study.
The results of GWP of CH4 and N2O suggest that AWD and
AWDS with the current settings are not the best techniques to
reduce the annual GWP in this site. Because AWD and AWDS
could not be fully imposed in WS, it is necessary to develop
other options for reducing the GWP, especially for CH4 emis-
sion. However, this study also found several lessons from the
3-year field experiment to enhance the ability of AWD and
AWDS in reducing the GWP. As demonstrated in 2016DS, an
earlier rice residue incorporation and keeping dry soil condi-
tions in the preceding fallow season would be plausible
options to reduce CH4 emission in the following rice growing
season. As for N fertilizer topdressing, rice field should be
flooded during and after the application to reduce N2O emis-
sion as well as to enhance the efficiency for rice uptake. In
addition, it should be noted that AWD and AWDS did not
reduce the soil carbon content in the topsoil (0–20 cm)
throughout the 3-year experiment (Supplemental Fig. S1).
SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT NUTRITION 45
Complying the above two lessons and the proper implemen-
tation of water management practices will be key to success in
reducing GHG emissions through the feasible implementation
of AWD.
5. Conclusions
This study found that the implementation of AWD is feasible
in DS in Central Luzon, Philippines. Intermittent heavy rainfall
in WS often interrupts the natural drainage under AWD, lead-
ing to insufficient soil drying that cannot substantially reduce
CH4 emission. The original concept of AWD to save irrigation
water consumption does not apply to WS. Because highly
reductive soil conditions are unfavorable to sound rice growth
as well as microbial CH4 production, more active drainage
practices, such as surface drainage and pump drainage, may
be plausible options in WS.
The AWD with the current settings significantly reduced the
seasonal total CH4 emission, but the reduction rate against CF
was very limited (1.7%). In addition, N2O emission was
enhanced by the AWD, and the resultant GWP of CH4 and
N2O did not significantly differ among treatments. However,
learning from field experiences, we found feasible options that
enhance the ability of AWD in reducing GHG emissions: (1) an
earlier rice residue incorporation under dry soil conditions, (2)
an earlier implementation of drainage, and (3) a proper main-
tenance of flooded soil condition during/after N fertilizer top-
dressing. Further study is necessary to test the quantitative
effect of these options under field conditions.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries
(MAFF) of Japan through the International Research Project “Technology
development for circulatory food production systems responsive to circu-
latory food production systems responsive to climate change:
Development of mitigation options for greenhouse gas emissions from
agricultural lands in Southeast Asia 2 (MIRSA 2)”. We would like to thank
Prof. Kazuyuki Inubushi (Chiba University, Japan), Dr Reiner Wassmann
(IRRI, Philippines), and Dr Kazuyuki Yagi (NIAES, Japan) for their valuable
comments on the earlier version of this manuscript.
Funding
This study was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries
(MAFF) of Japan through the International Research Project “Technology
development for circulatory food production systems responsive to circu-
latory food production systems responsive to climate change:
Development of mitigation options for greenhouse gas emissions from
agricultural lands in Southeast Asia 2 (MIRSA 2)”.
References
Allen LH, Albrecht SL, Colon-Guasp W, Covell SA, Baker JT, Pan D, Boote KJ
2003: Methane emissions of rice increased by elevated carbon dioxide
and temperature. J. Environ. Qual., 32, 1978–1991. 10.2134/
jeq2003.1978
Bharati K, Mohnaty SR, Rao VR, Adhya TK 2001: Influence of flooded and
non-flooded conditions on methane efflux from two soils planted to
rice. Chemosphere-Glob. Change Sci., 3, 25–32. 10.1016/S1465-9972(00)
00034-9
46 E. B. SIBAYAN ET AL.
Bouman BAM, Lampayan RM, Tuong TP 2007: Water Management in
Irrigated Rice: coping with Water Scarcity, 54. International Rice
Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines.
Bouman BAM, Tuong TP 2001: Field water management to save water and
increase its productivity in irrigated rice. Agric. Water Manage., 49, 11–
30. 10.1016/S0378-3774(00)00128-1
Box GE, Cox DR 1964: An analysis of transformations. J. Royal Stat. Soc.
Series B., 26. 211–246.
Bronson KF, Singh U, Neue HU, Abao EB 1997: Automated chamber
measurements of methane and nitrous oxide flux in a flooded rice
soils: II. Fallow period emissions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 61, 988–993.
10.2136/ssaj1997.03615995006100030039x
Cai Z, Guangxi X, Yan X, Xu H, Tsuruta H, Yagi K, Minami K 1997: Methane
and nitrous oxide emissions from paddy fields as affected by nitrogen
fertilizers and water management. Plant Soil, 196, 7–14. 10.1023/
A:1004263405020
Chidthaisong A, Inubushi K, Muramatsu Y, Watanabe I 1996: Production
potential and emission of methane in flooded rice soil microcosm after
continuous application of straws. Microbes Environ., 3, 73–78. 10.1264/
jsme2.11.73
Corton TM, Bajita JB, Grospe FS, Pamplona RR, Asis CA Jr, Wassmann R,
Lantin RS, Buendia LV 2000: Methane emissions from irrigated and
intensively managed rice fields in Central Luzon (Philippines). Nutr.
Cycl. Agroecosyst., 58, 37–53. 10.1023/A:1009826131741
DA-Department of Agriculture 2016: 2015 Annual Report Magandang Ani
Magandang Buhay, p 65. Department of Agriculture. Quezon City,
Philippines.
Fox J, Weisberg S 2011: An R Companion to Applied Regression, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Gaihre YK, Wassmann R, Villegas-Pangga G, Sanabria J, Aquino E, Sta. Cruz
PC, Paningbatan EP 2016: Effects of increased temperatures and rice
straw incorporation on methane and nitrous oxide emissions in a
greenhouse experiment with rice. Eur. J. Soil Sci, 67, 868–880.
10.1111/ejss.12389
Inubushi K, Sugii H, Nishino S, Nishino E 2001: Effects of aquatic weeds on
methane emission from submerged paddy soils. Am. J. Bot., 88, 975–
979. 10.2307/2657078
IPCC-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014: Climate Change
2014: synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. In eds, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA. Intergovernmental panel on
climate change. 151. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
Knoblauch C, Maarifat AA, Pfeiffer EM, Haefele SM 2011: Degradability of
black carbon and its impact on trace gas fluxes and carbon turnover in
paddy soils. Soil Biol. Biochem., 43, 1768–1778. 10.1016/j.
soilbio.2010.07.012
Koidi N, Robertson WA, Ines AVM, Qian J-H, DeWitt DG, Lucero A 2013:
Prediction of rice production in the Philippines. J. Appl. Meteorol.
Climatol., 52, 552–569. 10.1175/JAMC-D-11-0254.1
Lampayan RM, Samoy-Pascual KC, Sibayan EB, Ella VB, Jayag OB,
Cabangon R, Bouman BAM 2015: Effects of alternate wetting and
drying (AWD) threshold level and plant seedling age on crop perfor-
mance, water input, and water productivity of transplanted rice in
Central Luzon, Philippines. Paddy Water Environ., 13, 215–227.
10.1007/s10333-014-0423-5
Ly P, Vu DQ, Jensen LS, Pandey A, De Neergaard A 2014: Effects of rice
straw, biochar, and mineral fertilizer on methane (CH4) and nitrous
oxide (N2O) emission from rice (Oryza sativa L.) grown in a rain-fed
lowland rice soil of Cambodia: a pot experiment. Paddy Water Environ.,
13, 465–475. 10.1007/s10333-014-0464-9
Minamikawa K, Tokida T, Sudo S, Padre A, Yagi K 2015: Guidelines for
Measuring CH4 and N2O Emissions from Rice Paddies by a Manually
Operated Closed Chamber Method, National Institute for Agro-
Environmental Sciences, Tsukuba, Japan.
Moog FA 2005: Country pasture/forage resource profiles: Philippines.
http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/Counprof/Philippines/Philipp.
htm (January 20, 2017).
Nelson A, Reiner W, Sander BO, Palo LK 2015: Climate-determined suit-
ability of the water saving technology “alternate wetting and drying” in
rice systems: a scalable methodology demonstrated for a province in
the Philippines. PLoS ONE, 10(12), e0145268. pone.0145268. 10.1371/
journal
Padre AT, Rai M, Kumar V et al. 2016: Quantifying changes to the global
warming potential of rice wheat systems with the adoption of conser-
vation agriculture in northwestern India. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 219,
125–137. 10.1016/j.agee.2015.12.020
PhilRice 2007: PalayCheck® System for Irrigated Lowland Rice, PhilRice,
Maligaya, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines.
PhilRice-Philippine Rice Research Institute 2011: Philippine Rice Industry
Prime Series, pp. 32. PhilRice, Maligaya, Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines.
Rath CK, Das SN, Thakur RS 2000: Methane emission from flooded rice
fields. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 59. 107–113.
Sander OB, Samson M, Buresh RJ 2014: Methane and nitrous oxide emis-
sions from flooded rice fields as affected by water and straw manage-
ment between crops. Geoderma, 235-236, 355–362. 10.1016/j.
geoderma.2014.07.020
Schutz H, Seiler W, Conrad R 1989: Processes involved in formation and
emission of methane in rice paddies. Biogeochemistry, 7, 33–53.
10.1007/BF00000896
Singh SN, Verma A, Tyagi L 2003: Investigating options for attenuating
methane emission from Indian rice fields. Environt. Int., 29, 547–553.
10.1016/S01604120(03)00010-2
Sun H, Sheng Z, Fu Z, Chen G, Zou G, Song X 2016: A two-year field
measurement of methane and nitrous oxide fluxes from rice paddies
under contrasting climate conditions. Sci. Rep., 6, 28255. 10.1038/
srep28255
Tariq S, Jensen LS, De Tourdonnet S, Sander BO, De Neergaard A 2017:
Early drainage mitigates methane and nitrous oxide emissions from
organically amended paddy soils. Geoderma, 304, 49–58. 10.1016/j.
geoderma.2016.08.022
Tokida T, Adachi M, Cheng W, Nakajima Y, Fumoto T, Matsushima M,
Nakamura H, Okada M, Sameshima R, Hasegawa T 2011: Methane and
soil CO2 production from current-season photosynthates in a rice
paddy exposed to elevated CO2 concentration and soil temperature.
Global Change Biol. 17, 3327–3337.
Toma Y, Oomori S, Maruyama A, Ueno H, Nagata O 2016: Effect of the
number of tillages in fallow season and fertilizer type on greenhouse
gas emission from a rice (Oryza sativa L.) paddy field in Ehime, south-
western Japan. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 62, 69–79. 10.1080/
00380768.2015.1109999
Van Der Gon HACD, Kripff MJ, Van Breemen N, Wassmann R, Lantin RS,
Aduna E, Corton TM 2002: Optimizing grain yields reduces CH4 emis-
sions from rice paddy fields. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99, 12021–
12024. 10.1073/pnas.192276599
Wassmann R, Neue HU, Ladha JK, Aulak H 2004: Mitigating greenhouse
gas emissions from rice-wheat cropping systems in Asia. Environ. Dev.
Sustain., 6, 65–90. 10.1023/B:ENVI.0000003630.54494.a7
Wassmann R, Neue HU, Lantin RS, Makarim K, Chareonsilo N, Buendia LV,
Rennenberg H 2000: Characterization of methane emissions from
rice fields in Asia. II. Differences among irrigated, rainfed and deepwater
rice. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst., 58, 13–22. 10.1023/A:1009822030832
Yagi K, Tsuruta H, Minami K 1997: Possible options for mitigating methane
emission from rice cultivation. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst., 49, 213–220.
10.1023/A:1009743909716
Zou J, Huang Y, Jiang J, Zheng X, Sass R 2005: A 3-year field measurement
of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from rice paddies in China:
effects of water regime, crop residue, and fertilizer application. Glob.
Biogeochem. Cycles, 19, GB2021. 10.1029/2004GB002401