Soil Science and Plant Nutrition

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

Site-specific feasibility of alternate wetting and

drying as a greenhouse gas mitigation option in
irrigated rice fields in Southeast Asia: a synthesis

Agnes Tirol-Padre, Kazunori Minamikawa, Takeshi Tokida, Reiner Wassmann

& Kazuyuki Yagi

To cite this article: Agnes Tirol-Padre, Kazunori Minamikawa, Takeshi Tokida, Reiner
Wassmann & Kazuyuki Yagi (2018) Site-specific feasibility of alternate wetting and drying as
a greenhouse gas mitigation option in irrigated rice fields in Southeast Asia: a synthesis, Soil
Science and Plant Nutrition, 64:1, 2-13, DOI: 10.1080/00380768.2017.1409602

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2017.1409602

View supplementary material

Published online: 01 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3035

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 32 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tssp20
SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT NUTRITION, 2018
VOL. 64, NO. 1, 2–13
https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2017.1409602

Site-specific feasibility of alternate wetting and drying as a greenhouse gas

mitigation option in irrigated rice fields in Southeast Asia: a synthesis
Agnes Tirol-Padrea, Kazunori Minamikawab, Takeshi Tokidab, Reiner Wassmanna,c and Kazuyuki Yagib
a
Crop and Environmental Sciences Division, International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines; bInstitute for Agro-Environmental
Sciences, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (NARO), Ibaraki, Japan; cKarlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Meteorology
and Climate Research (IMK-IFU), Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study comprises a comprehensive assessment, integration, and synthesis of data gathered from a Received 30 June 2017
3-year field experiment conducted at four sites in Southeast Asia, namely Hue, Vietnam; Jakenan, Accepted 21 November 2017
Indonesia; Prachin Buri, Thailand; and Muñoz, Philippines, to assess the site-specific feasibility of KEY WORDS
alternate wetting and drying (AWD) as a greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation option in irrigated rice Water management;
fields. AWD effectively reduced water use compared to continuous flooding (CF) but did not signifi- methane; nitrous oxide;
cantly reduce rice grain yield and soil carbon content in all sites. Methane (CH4) emissions varied emission factor; soil carbon;
significantly among sites and seasons as affected by soil properties and water management. AWD water productivity
reduced CH4 emissions relative to CF by 151 (25%), 166 (37%), 9 (31%), and 22 (32%) kg CH4 ha−1
season−1 in Hue, Jakenan, Prachin Buri, and Muñoz, respectively. In Prachin Buri and Muñoz, AWD
reduced CH4 emissions only during the dry season. Site-specific CH4 emission factors (EFs) ranged 0.13–
4.50 and 0.08–4.88 kg CH4 ha−1 d−1 under CF and AWD, respectively. The mean AWD scaling factors
(SFs) was 0.69 (95% confidence interval: 0.61–0.77), which is slightly higher than the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’ SF for multiple aeration of 0.52 (error range: 0.41–0.66). Significant
reductions in the global warming potential (GWP) of CH4+nitrous oxide (N2O) by AWD were observed in
Hue and Jakenan (27.8 and 36.1%, respectively), where the contributions of N2O to the total GWP were
only 0.8 and 3.5%, respectively. In Muñoz, however, CH4 emission reduction through AWD was offset by
the increase in N2O emissions. The results indicate that the IPCC’s SF for multiple aeration may only be
applied to irrigated rice fields where surface water level is controllable for a substantial period. This
study underscores the importance of practical feasibility and appropriate timing of water management
in successful GHG reductions by AWD.

1. Introduction 1998; Yagi and Minami 1990; Yao et al. 1999). The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2006) has
Rice is the only crop grown in predominantly flooded fields,
given a baseline emission factor for CH4 (EFCH4) of 1.3 kg
and the subsequent anaerobic soil conditions stimulate the
CH4 ha−1 d−1 (with error range of 0.8–2.2), estimated by sta-
production of methane (CH4), a potent greenhouse gas (GHG)
tistical analysis of available data (Yan et al. 2005) from con-
(Conen et al. 2010; Hou et al. 2000; Wang et al. 1993;
tinuously flooded rice fields without organic amendments.
Wassmann and Dobermann 2006). CH4 emissions from rice
This baseline EFCH4 can be adjusted using scaling factors
cultivation contribute substantially to the national GHG bud-
(SFs) to account for various conditions, e.g., water regime,
gets of Asian countries (Wassmann et al. 2000a, 2000b). The
organic amendments, and rice cropping practices.
two major GHGs, carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide
Alternate wetting and drying (AWD) is a water manage-
(N2O), are also exchanged between rice fields and the atmo-
ment practice that was developed and being extended by the
sphere. Global and regional estimates of GHG emissions from
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and its partners to
rice fields vary greatly depending on the assumptions made
many rice-producing countries, to reduce the consumption of
on the relative importance of different factors affecting the
irrigation water (Lampayan et al. 2004). Water management
emissions. Studies have shown spatial variations in CH4 emis-
practices such as AWD (Bouman et al. 2007), mid-season drai-
sions from continuously flooded rice fields with varying soil
nage, and intermittent irrigation (Minamikawa et al. 2014)
properties including sand and clay contents, aeration, com-
mitigate CH4 emissions by periodic aeration that inhibits the
paction, moisture, pH, organic matter, available N, C/N ratio,
activity of CH4-producing archaea. Several studies have
and also with changes in soil management, crop rotation, and
demonstrated the effective mitigation of CH4 emissions from
climates (Adhya et al. 1994; Gogoi et al. 2008; Inubushi et al.
rice fields through soil and water management (Ahmad et al.
1997; Kimura et al. 1991; Kumar and Viyol 2009; Minami and
2009; Harada et al. 2007; Ishibashi et al. 2009; Itoh et al. 2011;
Neue 1994; Wassmann et al. 2000a, 2000b; Yang and Chang

CONTACT Kazunori Minamikawa minakazu@affrc.go.jp Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization
(NARO), 3-1-3 Kannondai, Tsukuba 305-8604, Japan
Supplemental data can be accessed here.
© 2017 Japanese Society of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition

Jiao et al. 2007; Ko et al. 2002; Yagi et al. 1996). Sander et al.
(2015) carried out a literature survey of 24 independent stu-
dies on GHG mitigation by water management in China, India,
Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, and Philippines, and showed a
mean CH4 reduction of 1.26 kg CH4 ha−1 d−1 resulting from
multiple aeration or multiple drainage, and 1.15 kg CH4 ha−1
d−1 from single aeration or single drainage, as compared to
continuous flooding (CF). They also reported a SF, the ratio of
CH4 emission under target practice to that under baseline (CF)
practice, of 0.57 (range: 0.19–0.86) and 0.63 (0.18–1.52) under
multiple aeration and single aeration, respectively.
The N2O emissions from rice fields mainly occur just after
soil flooding for rice cultivation, during temporal drainage
events, and during fallow periods, and thus are generally
higher under water management practices as compared to
CF. Akiyama et al. (2005) compiled available data in the litera-
ture on N2O emissions from fertilized rice fields and reported
that the fertilizer-induced N2O emission factors for CF, mid-
season drainage, and all water regimes were 0.22, 0.37, and
0.31%, respectively. The last value has been adopted as the
IPCC’s default N2O emission factor (EFN2O) for flooded rice
(0.3%) though with a large error range (0.0–0.6%) (IPCC 2006).
A field monitoring campaign was conducted under a joint
international research project at four sites: 1) Hue, Vietnam, 2)
Jakenan, Indonesia, 3) Prachin Buri, Thailand, and 4) Muñoz,
Philippines (Fig. 1). They represent diversified paddy environ-
ments in Southeast Asia. Results from each site were reported
in separate papers of this issue (Tran et al. 2018; Setyanto et al.
2018; Chidthaisong et al. 2018; Sibayan et al. 2018). They mon-
itored the changes in soil carbon (C) content, which may be lost
by intensive drainage events, in addition to CH4 and N2O emis-
sions under AWD and CF. Here, we present a synthesis and
integration of the results from the four sites to assess the
generalities and site-specificities of AWD as a mitigation option
for GHG emissions from irrigated rice fields in Southeast Asia.
This study (1) analyzed the effects of environment and soil
Muñoz, Philippines
Hue, Vietnam
Prachin Buri,
Thailand
Jakenan, Indonesia
Figure 1. Locations of the four experimental sites.
SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT NUTRITION 3
properties on the extent of GHG mitigation by AWD, (2) exam-
ined the potential trade-offs and co-benefits in terms of rice
grain yield and water savings from AWD, and (3) compared the
obtained EFCH4, the ratio of N2O-N emission to applied N as
inorganic fertilizer, and SF for CH4 under AWD (SFCH4-AWD) with
the IPCC’s default values (IPCC 2006).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Data source
The data set analyzed in this study was generated from field
experiments conducted under the international research project
known as MIRSA-2. The project covered six rice seasons including
both dry and wet ones (DS and WS) in 2013–2016 at four sites,
namely Hue, Vietnam; Jakenan, Indonesia; Prachin Buri, Thailand;
and Muñoz, the Philippines (Fig. 1). The detailed information on
site locations, basic soil properties, cropping seasons, weather
conditions, and field management are summarized in Table 1.
Photographs of soil profile at the four sites are shown in Fig. 2.
The experimental plots in each site were laid out in a rando-
mized complete block design with three treatments and three
blocks except for Muñoz with four blocks. The treatments were
(1) CF, (2) AWD, and (3) site-specific AWD (AWDS). In AWD, the
water management followed what is called safe-AWD. The field
was irrigated when the surface water level reached 15 cm below
the soil surface after which the field was re-flooded to around 5-
cm level above the soil surface throughout the cropping season
except for the flowering stage (Sander et al. 2015). The method of
implementing AWDS varied among sites, as briefly summarized
below. In Hue, the threshold of re-flooding changed depending
on rice growth stage. That is, the plots were irrigated when the
water level dropped to 5 cm, 10 cm, and 15 cm below the soil
surface at early tillering stage, late tillering stage, and grain filling
and ripening stage, respectively (Tran et al. 2018). In Jakenan,
multiple aeration 7 days before the 1st and 2nd N fertilizer
topdressing was implemented as AWDS in the first two seasons,
and in the succeeding seasons, the threshold of re-flooding
changed to 25 cm below the soil surface (Setyanto et al. 2018).
In Prachin Buri, the plots were re-flooded to 10-cm level under
AWDS as compared to 5-cm level under AWD (Chidthaisong et al.
2018). In Muñoz, AWDS was implemented as a 7–10-day-long
single aeration (i.e., mid-season drainage) in the first two seasons.
In the succeeding seasons, it was implemented as the AWD with
the threshold of 25 cm below the soil surface. The starting timing
of AWD and AWDS was changed from 21 days after transplanting
(DAT) to 10 DAT from the 5th season to achieve drier soil condi-
tions (Sibayan et al. 2018).
Water use expressed as m3 ha−1 (Table 3) is the amount of
irrigation water used at each site that was estimated using a flow
meter connected to the irrigation pump, plus the total amount of
rainfall recorded for each season. Water productivity expressed
as kg grain m−3 (Table 3) was estimated from the grain yield
divided by the total amount of irrigation water including rainfall.
2.2. Gas measurement and soil analyses
The CH4 and N2O emissions were measured by a manual closed
chamber method. Standardized protocols were commonly used
4 A. TIROL-PADRE ET AL.

Table 1. Location, soil properties, season, weather, and field management of the four experimental sites.
Site name Hue Jakenan Prachin Buri Muñoz
Location
Country Vietnam Indonesia Thailand Philippines
Province Thua Thien Central Java Prachin Buri Nueva Ecija
City Hue Jakenan, Pati Bansang Muñoz
Latitude (°N) 16.43 6.78 14.01 15.67
Longitude (°E) 107.51 111.20 101.22 120.89
Soil propertiesa
Texture Loam Loam Heavy clay Clay
Clay (%) 17.8 22.5 62.9 46.2
Sand (%) 49.3 48.6 10.4 21.7
Silt (%) 32.9 28.8 26.7 32.1
pH (H2O) 4.36 ± 0.02 5.04 ± 0.21 3.53 ± 0.03 5.89 ± 0.11
pH (H2O2) 2.94 ± 0.05 3.33 ± 0.21 2.10 ± 0.06 4.43 ± 0.02
Bulk density (g cm−3) 1.01 1.54 1.43 1.21
Active Fe (g kg−1) 12.3 ± 0.0 3.6 ± 0.0 15.6 ± 0.1 12.6 ± 0.3
Active Mn (g kg−1) 0.03 ± 0.01 0.05 ± 0.00 0.07 ± 0.00 0.68 ± 0.01
Total C (g kg−1)b 19.2 ± 1.1 5.3 ± 0.3 22.2 ± 1.2 14.6 ± 1.1
Total N (g kg−1)b 1.88 ± 0.10 0.47 ± 0.02 1.80 ± 0.10 1.20 ± 0.10
C:N mole ratiob 11.9 ± 0.2 13.3 ± 1.0 14.6 ± 0.4 14.0 ± 0.8

Season/weather
Crop calendar Dry: January–March Wet: Nov–March Dry: January–April Dry: January–April
Wet: April–August Dry: March–July Wet: June–September DF: April–June
WF: September–December DF: July–November WF: September–December Wet: June–September
WF: September–December
Rainfall (mm) Dry: 251 Wet: 966 Dry: 99 Dry: 25
Wet: 283 Dry: 336 Wet: 948 DF: 253
WF: 1642 DF: 158 WF: 408 Wet: 835
WF: 470
Air temperature (°C, min.-max.) Dry: 11.3–37.3 Wet: 24.0–39.0 Dry: 24.0–35.5 Dry: 21.8–31.1
Wet: 22.8–38.7 Dry: 23.7–39.5 Wet: 25.5–33.8 DF: 24.5–35.9
WF: 19.2–37.7 DF: 22.9–39.8 WF: 24.5–33.7 Wet: 23.3–30.3
WF: 23.1–31.9
Field management
Variety HT1 Cisadane RD41 NSIC Rc238
Growth duration (day) 96–120 107–132 88–98 81–98
Crop establishment Wet direct seeding Wet: Direct seeding Pre-germinated seed broadcasting Transplanting
Dry: Transplanting
Inorganic fertilizer
N (kg N ha−1) 92–120 120 70 90–120
P (kg P2O5 ha−1) 72 60 37.5 40
K (kg K2O ha−1) 62–78 90 37.5 40
Organic amendment Microbial organic fertilizer Farmyard manure None None
Residue management Rice straw removal Rice straw removal Rice straw removal Rice straw removal
a
Range of standard deviation.
b
The average value of yearly samplings from all treatments during the experiment (see Fig. 4 for sampling time).
WF: Wet fallow; DF: Dry fallow.

to ensure precise and accurate gas flux measurements based on
the guidelines given by Minamikawa et al. (2015). Gas sampling
was done between 9 and 11 AM, once a week and 5 consecutive
days after N fertilization. The total number of samplings con-
ducted per season was 16–20 in Hue, 22–29 in Jakenan, 16–28 in
Prachin Buri, and 15–21 in Muñoz. Gas samples were taken 5
times, at 1, 6, 12, 20, and 30 mins after chamber deployment and
stored in evacuated glass vials until analysis using gas chromato-
graphy. Hourly gas flux was calculated using linear regression
and the seasonal emission was computed as the sum of daily
fluxes. Daily fluxes in between measurements were estimated
from a linear interpolation of two consecutive measurements.
Soil (0–20 cm depth) samples were collected annually from the
three treatments in each of the three replicate blocks at each site
except in Muñoz with four replicate blocks. Air-dried samples were
sent to IRRI in the Philippines after the 3-year experiment for
analyses of pH in 1:1 soil:water suspension, pH after oxidation
with 30% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) (Ahern et al. 1998), total C
and N, active iron (Fe), and active manganese (Mn), to eliminate
the interlaboratory variability in accuracy and precision. Total C
and N were analyzed by a dry combustion method. Active Fe and
Mn were analyzed by sodium dithionite extraction and inductively
coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (Asami and
Kumada 1959).
2.3. Calculation of emission-related parameters
The parameters included EFCH4 under CF and AWD (EFCH4-CF
and EFCH4-AWD), SFCH4-AWD, the ratios of N2O-N emission to
applied N as inorganic fertilizer under CF and AWD, and
GWPs under CF and AWD (GWPCF and GWPAWD). It is noted
that EFCH4-CF and EFCH4-AWD calculated here are not exactly the
 SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT NUTRITION 5

Hue Vietnam Prachinburi Jakenan Muñoz,

Thailand Indonesia Philippines

0 cm

0 cm
17 cm 25 cm

Redox horizon
80 cm

87 cm 140 cm

FAO: Dystric USDA: Vertic USDA: Aeric FAO: Ustic Epiaquert

Fluvisols Endoaquepts Active, Endoaquepts USDA: Eutric Vertisol
USDA: Typic acid isohyperthermic
Endoaquepts sulfic Endoaquepts

WET WET DRY DRY

no mottles with mottles

Decreasing redox condition

Figure 2. Comparison of the soil profiles in the four experimental sites. The soil profiles are arranged according to the apparent soil redox condition with showing
the USDA and FAO classifications.

Table 2. Comparison of alternate wetting and drying (AWD) implementation among the four experimental sitesa.
Criteria Water management Hue Jakenan Prachin Buri DS Muñoz DS Muñoz WS
Minimum water level (cm) AWD −18.3 ± 6.2 −23.1 ± 13.5 −12.5 ± 5.6 −13.9 ± 1.0 −9.5 ± 4.2
(−25.4 to −7.7) (−46.3 to −11.3) (−15.4 to −4.0) (−15.0 to −13.1) (−12.5 to −6.5)
AWDS −13.0 ± 4.9 −32.1 ± 18.0 −13.0 ± 4.5 −13.3 ± 6.3 −8.6 ± 0.6
(−20.1 to −6.3) (−63.8 to −19.2) (−15.4 to −6.3) (−19.1 to −6.6) (−9.0 to −8.1)
Number of non-flooded days AWD 30.2 ± 5.8 30.7 ± 7.9 24.3 ± 3.8 34.0 ± 10.5 10.5 ± 9.2
(22 to 39) (20 to 41) (20 to 27) (24 to 45) (4 to 17)
AWDS 29.3 ± 8.5 27.2 ± 11.9 13.3 ± 4.7 31.7 ± 19.0 6.0 ± 2.8
(14 to 36) (14 to 44) (8 to 17) (12 to 50) (4 to 8)
Ratio of non-flooded days to total AWD 0.31 ± 0.08 0.28 ± 0.08 0.26 ± 0.03 0.39 ± 0.19 0.13 ± 0.11
daysb (0.16 to 0.41) (0.16 to 0.39) (0.23 to 0.29) (0.21 to 0.60) (0.05 to 0.21)
AWDS 0.30 ± 0.09 0.24 ± 0.11 0.14 ± 0.03 0.38 ± 0.27 0.07 ± 0.04
(0.16 to 0.41) (0.11 to 0.37) (0.09 to 0.17) (0.13 to 0.67) (0.05 to 0.10)
Average water level (cm) AWD −0.1 ± 2.2 0.8 ± 0.6 −0.5 ± 2.7 −1.4 ± 1.1 1.9 ± 0.7
(−3.0 to 3.6) (−0.1 to 1.7) (−1.2 to 0.4) (−2.7 to −0.9) (1.4 to 2.4)
AWDS −0.1 ± 1.9 0.1 ± 1.3 3.3 ± 1.0 −2.0 ± 4.8 2.9 ± 1.1
(−3.4 to 2.4) (−1.5 to 1.7) (2.2 to 4.3) (−7.4 to 1.9) (2.1 to 3.8)
c
Drainability 0.94 ± 0.28 1.85 ± 0.80 0.78 ± 0.29 0.67 ± 0.24 0.67 ± 0.24
(mm hr−1)
a
Mean value ± standard deviation across seasons with the minimum to maximum range in parentheses.
b
Total days from seeding to final drainage.
c
Observed rate of decline of the surface water level, including evapotranspiration.

same as the IPCC’s Tier-1 EFs (IPCC 2006). Rather, these are
site-specific and management-specific EFs (e.g., in Jakenan, CF
and AWD with the application of farmyard manure), and thus
can be considered as the Tier-2 approach that is suitable for
country-specific estimations.
Data from AWD and AWDS from each block were combined
as AWD in calculating all the parameters as mentioned in the
subsection 3.2. The EFCH4-CF and EFCH4-AWD (kg CH4 ha−1 d−1)
were calculated by dividing the seasonal (cumulative) emis-
sion by the growth duration. The ratios of N2O-N emission to
applied N as inorganic fertilizer under CF and AWD (%) were
calculated by dividing the seasonal (cumulative) N2O-N emis-
sion by the amount of inorganic fertilizer N applied. Site
means across seasons were weighted against the variances
obtained from three or four replicate (block) measurements
in each season. For estimating weighted means and 95%
bootstrapped confidence interval (CI) of SFCH4-AWD, the LN
(natural log or log base-e) response ratio (LN (EFCH4-AWD/
EFCH4-CF) for each site and combined for all sites was calcu-
lated using MetaWin (ver.2.1; Rosenberg et al. 2000).
6 A. TIROL-PADRE ET AL.

Table 3. Comparisons of the effects of AWD on greenhouse gas emissions, rice productivity, and water use among the four experimental sites.
Water
N2O Yield-scaled productivity
CH4 (kg N2O (kg N2O contribution GWP (kg Grain yield GWP (Mg Water use (kg grain
CH4 ha−1) ha−1) to GWP (%) CO2 ha−1) (Mg ha−1) CO2 Mg−1 grain) (m3 ha−1) m−3)
Site DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS
Value under continuous flooding (CF)
Hue 499.5 644.2 0.28 0.70 0.6 1.0 17,030 23,540 4.41 4.44 3.49 4.89 8127 8394 0.56 0.54
Jakenan 385.3 515.4 0.81 1.13 2.2 2.3 13,342 17,861 5.12 6.87 2.67 2.61 6635 12,521 0.83 0.57
Prachin Buri 13.4 23.0 0.97 0.22 39.3 5.6 746 1190 4.64 4.28 0.15 0.23 7119 11,332 0.71 0.45
Muñoz 69.9 328.9 1.60 0.51 20.6 1.4 2853 11,333 6.90 5.41 0.43 2.10 10,336 10,944 0.77 0.51
Change under AWD relative to CF (%)
Hue −25.8 −23.8 −26.3 −26.3 −21.8 12.7 −30.8 −24.8 10.3 4.5 −33.6 −21.8 −14.4 −14.9 30.1 25.6
Jakenan −36.7 −36.8 −13.5 12.1 26.4 85.9 −36.3 −35.9 −0.82 −1.4 −36.8 −35.4 −6.4 −5.7 4.6 3.3
Prachin Buri −31.2 – 19.3 – 11.8 – −11.5 – −12.6 – −3.2 – −29.8 – 17.6 –
Muñoz −32.1 14.1 91.3 4.7 95.8 25.1 −11.4 14.0 −0.13 1.9 −9.3 9.1 −47.1 −17.0 69.0 22.2
P-value
Site (S) *** *** – *** *** *** *** ***
Dry or Wet (DW) ** 0.209 – ** 0.484 ** *** **
Water management (WM) *** 0.269 – ** 0.638 0.326 *** ***
S × DW *** *** – *** *** *** *** ***
WM × S 0.129 0.711 – * 0.594 † *** *
WM × DW 0.829 0.959 – 0.778 0.295 0.829 0.238 0.931
WM × DW × S 0.901 0.894 – 0.914 0.140 0.955 * *
– data not available.
***, **, *, and † indicate significant difference at p = 0.001, 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1, respectively.

Treatment effects were considered to be significantly different
from one another if their 95% CIs did not overlap and were
considered significant if the 95% CI did not overlap with zero.
The weighted means for Hue and Jakenan were based on
six-season data, but for Muñoz, separate means were calcu-
lated for WS and DS due to the significant differences in
emissions between them. In Prachin Buri, no data were gen-
erated in the 4th season as planting was canceled due to
flooding. The data for AWD in the 6th season from Prachin
Buri and Muñoz were excluded from analyses since soil drai-
nage under AWD (i.e., surface water level below 0 cm) was not
achieved during this season. In Hue, the N2O data from the 5th
and 6th seasons were excluded from the analyses due to the
malfunction of gas chromatograph. For the same reason, N2O
data from the 2nd season in Prachin Buri were excluded from
analyses.
The GWPCF and GWPAWD of CH4 and N2O emissions were
calculated using the IPCC’s factors with inclusion of climate-
carbon feedbacks (34 for CH4 and 298 for N2O; Myhre et al. 2013).
Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) to determine if any of the five
measured criteria could be used to predict SFCH4-AWD.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of data from the four sites
was performed with a mixed model (‘proc mixed’) in the SAS
software to assess the main effects of site (the four experi-
mental sites), DS or WS (DW in Table 3), water management
(WM in Table 3), and their interactions. A split-plot model was
applied in which experimental site was treated as the whole-
plot factor, DW as the split-plot factor, and WM as the split-
split-factor. Variance components were estimated by the
restricted maximum-likelihood method with the ‘nobound’
option, and the denominator degrees of freedom were esti-
mated by the Kenward–Roger approximation (Kenward and
Roger 1997; Littell et al. 2006). Because emissions of CH4 and
N2O showed highly skewed distributions and violated normal-
ity and homoscedasticity assumptions, the Box-Cox transfor-
mation 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).

2.4. Quantitative assessment of soil drying under AWD
and statistical analyses
We set the following five criteria to quantitatively assess the
degree of soil drying under AWD: (1) minimum water level
below the soil surface (MinWL), (2) number of non-flooded
days (NNFD), (3) ratio of NNFD to total number of rice crop-
ping days, (4) average surface water level during rice cropping
period, and (5) soil drainability. The soil drainability was the
apparent decline rate of surface water level that included
plant evapotranspiration. Target period of the five criteria
was from planting day until the last day before final drainage
prior to harvest. Multiple linear regression analysis with step-
wise selection was done using SAS software ver. 9.4 (SAS
3. Results
3.1. Inter-site variations in soil properties, weather
conditions, and field management practices
Soil texture differed from loam in Hue and Jakenan to heavy
clay in Prachin Buri (Table 1). The total C and N contents
ranged from 5.3–19.2 g kg−1 and 0.47–1.9 g kg−1, respectively,
with the lowest values in Jakenan and the highest in Prachin
Buri. The C:N mole ratio was comparable among Jakenan,
Muñoz, and Prachin Buri, but that in Hue was relatively low.
The active Fe content of Jakenan soil was the lowest among
sites. Active Mn content was the highest in Muñoz.
The soil profiles at the four sites are shown in Fig. 2. Hue
and Prachin Buri soils were wet and had reduced conditions as

indicated by the bluish black color compared to Jakenan and
Muñoz soils with relatively dry and more oxidized conditions
revealed by the brown color. Prachin Buri soil differed from
Hue soil in that the former had distinct dark yellowish brown
mottles in the subsurface horizons indicating seasonal oxida-
tion in the soil pores. Thus, among the sites, Hue soil was
considered as having the most reduced condition followed by
Prachin Buri. Prachin Buri soil was classified as acid, sulfic
Endoaquepts originating from the deposition of seawater or
brackish water sediment. Prachin Buri soil collected at the time
of the experiment had an average pH(H2O) of <4 (Table 1),
which confirms that it is an actual acid sulfate soil (Ahern et al.
1998). Further, an average pH(H2O2) of <3 confirms the pre-
sence of sulfides that have not been oxidized. On the other
hand, Hue soil with pH(H2O) of >4 and pH(H2O2) of <3 indi-
cates that it has the potential to become an actual acid sulfate
soil. However, at the time of soil sampling, Hue soil may not
be considered as acid sulfate. Muñoz soil exhibited vigorous
reaction with H2O2 but the resulting pH(H2O2) was >4. The
vigorous reaction may have been due to reactions of H2O2
with manganese, which had the highest concentration in
Muñoz soil (Table 1).
Between Jakenan and Muñoz soils, the latter was thought
to be under more oxidized conditions. Muñoz soil was classi-
fied as Ustic Epiaquert derived from Alluvium parent material
and was poorly drained, while Jakenan soil, Aeric
Endoaquepts, was a wet soil influenced by groundwater. But
its relatively high chroma indicated either a shorter period of
saturation of the whole soil profile with water or somewhat
deeper groundwater than that in the soils of the Typic
subgroup.
Cropping calendar differed among sites depending mainly
on irrigation water availability and rainfall pattern (Table 1). In
Hue and Prachin Buri, the fallow period coincided with months
of continuous rainfall when inundation usually occurs. On the
other hand, the fallow period in Jakenan coincided with dry
months when irrigation water is scarce. In Muñoz, a 2- to 3-
month dry or wet fallow period follows each crop of rice
(Table 1).
Crop and fertilizer management practices also differed
among sites (Table 1). Farmyard manure and an organic micro-
bial fertilizer were applied in Jakenan and Hue, respectively,
which are common in these areas. The amounts of inorganic N
applied were the lowest in Prachin Buri. In Jakenan, a rice
variety with relatively long growth duration was planted. In
all sites, harvested rice straw was removed from the field while
the rice stubbles were incorporated during soil puddling for
the succeeding rice crop. In Muñoz, only in the 5th season, an
earlier incorporation of rice stubbles was done under dry soil
conditions (Sibayan et al. 2018).
3.2. Inter-site variation in soil drying under AWD
Table 2 shows the calculated averages, with ranges and stan-
dard deviations, of the five criteria of soil drying under AWD
and AWDS in the four sites. The water level threshold of
−15 cm for safe AWD was not always achieved (i.e., water
level did not decline to −15 cm), but was often exceeded in
Hue and Jakenan due to the drier weather conditions and soil
SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT NUTRITION 7
properties. There were no substantial differences in the five
criteria between DS and WS in Jakenan, and between winter-
spring season and summer-autumn season in Hue, so the
overall site means are shown for these sites. In Prachin Buri
and Muñoz, AWD was not achieved during WS (data not
shown for Prachin Buri). In Muñoz, remarkable differences
between DS and WS were observed in the NNFD and the
average surface water level. Thus, data for both DS and WS
are shown. The NNFD covered 28–39% of the cropping period
in Muñoz DS, Hue, and Jakenan whereas it covered only
13–26% in Muñoz WS and Prachin Buri. The highest soil drain-
ability was observed in Jakenan.
The NNFD and MinWL were identified as the sole significant
(p < 0.05) predictors of SFCH4-AWD by stepwise selection and
multiple regression analysis of data from the loamy soils of
Hue and Jakenan (Tables S1 and S2). The two predictors
explained 41% of the variability in SFCH4-AWD in the loamy
soils as indicated by the model R2. Consequently, the follow-
ing regression equation was derived from the multiple linear
regression analysis for the loamy soils:
SFCH4
AWD ¼ 1:088 þ ð
0:0103  NNFDÞ þ ð0:00376  MinWLÞ
(1)
A significant linear relationship was obtained between the pre-
dicted and the observed SFCH4-AWD (Fig. 3A). Solid line calculated
using Eq. 1 shows the predicted SF at varying NNFDs when
MinWL was fixed at −15 cm, which is the threshold set for safe
AWD (Lampayan et al. 2004) (Fig. 3B). We did not obtain a
significant multiple regression equation to predict SFCH4-AWD
for the clay soils and for the combined clay and loam soils.
Based on the calculated five criteria, there was no clear
distinction between soil drying by AWD and AWDS at each
site as indicated by the overlapping error ranges (Table 2). We
therefore combined the data from AWD and AWDS in the
following sections to represent AWD in general.
3.3. GHG emission, soil C and N contents, grain yield,
and water use
The results of ANOVA showed significant (p < 0.05) effects of
site, season (DW; DS vs. WS), and water management (WM) on
the seasonal CH4 emissions (Table 3). The highest CH4 emis-
sion under CF was observed in Hue, while the emissions in
Muñoz DS and Prachin Buri were much lower. The CH4 emis-
sion reduction by AWD, which includes AWDS as mentioned
above, relative to CF was observed in all the sites except for
Muñoz WS, as indicated by the significant site × DW interac-
tion. In absolute amounts, the emission reduction during DS in
Hue, Jakenan, Prachin Buri, and Muñoz were 148, 190, 9, and
22 kg CH4 ha−1 season−1, respectively, and those during WS in
Hue, Jakenan, and Prachin Buri were 154, 141, and 8 kg
CH4 ha−1 season−1, respectively. In Muñoz WS, no CH4 emis-
sion reduction was achieved through AWD due to the contin-
uous heavy rainfall (Sibayan et al. 2018). The CH4 emissions
under CF were generally higher during WS than DS.
There was no significant effect of WM on the seasonal N2O
emission, but an emission increase under AWD was observed in
Muñoz, Jakenan, and Prachin Buri (Table 3). The season effect
8 A. TIROL-PADRE ET AL.

1.0 1.0
(a) (b)
0.8 0.8

Predicted SF, Observed SF

Predicted SF
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 Solid line

Dotted line Pred =
Pred = 0.409 × Obs + 0.417 1.088 + (−0.0103 × NNFD) + [0.00376 × (−15)]
0.2 (r = 0.639) 0.2 Dotted line
Obs = −0.0078 × NNFD + 0.9321
1:1 line (r = −0.535)
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50
Observed SF NNFD

Figure 3. Relationships between (A) predicted SFCH4-AWD and observed SFCH4-AWD and (B) observed SFCH4-AWD and NNFD for the data in Hue and Jakenan (n = 24; 2
sites × 6 seasons × 2 practices (AWD and AWDS)). In A panel, dotted line indicates the linear regression between predicted and observed SFCH4-AWD. In B panel, solid
and dotted lines indicate the multiple regression line with MinWL of −15 cm and the linear regression between observed SF and NNFD, respectively.

CF AWD AWDS

30 10
(a) Hue (b) Jakenan
25 8
Total C (g kg-1)

Total C (g kg-1)

20
6
15
4
10

5 2

0 0
Dec-2013 Sep-2014 Sep-2015 Sep-2016 Mar-2014 Apr-2015 Mar-2016

30 20
(c) Prachin Buri (d) Muñoz
25
15
Total C (g kg-1)

Total C (g kg-1)

20

15 10

10
5
5

0 0
2013 Apr-2014 May-2015 Jun-2016 Nov-2014 Dec-2015 May-2016 Oct-2016

Figure 4. Interannual variations in total carbon content at a soil depth of 0–20 cm among three water management practices in (A) Hue, (B) Jakenan, (C) Muñoz,
and (D) Prachin Buri. Vertical bars indicate the standard deviation (n = 3–4).

(DS vs. WS) on N2O emission was not significant but a significant
site × season interaction was observed (Table 3). Significant
differences in N2O emissions during DS and WS were observed
in Prachin Buri and Muñoz but not in Hue and Jakenan.
There were significant effects of WM and site on the GWP of
CH4 and N2O with significant WM × site interaction (Table 3). The
fraction of N2O to the GWP under CF was much higher in Muñoz
DS and Prachin Buri with clayey soils than in Hue and Jakenan
with loamy soils. AWD increased the N2O fraction in all the sites,
except for Hue DS. Moreover, 32% CH4 reduction through AWD
in Muñoz DS was partially offset by 96% increase in N2O emis-
sions, resulting in lower GWP reduction by AWD (11.4%) as
compared to the CH4 reduction (32.1%) (Table 3).
The total C and N contents in the topsoil (0–20 cm) did not
significantly differ among WM on each sampling date at each
site (Fig. 4 for total C; data not shown for total N). Further,
AWD showed no significant effect on rice grain yield and
yield-scaled GWP (Table 3). Water use and water productivity,
the ratio of grain yield to water use, were significantly affected
by WM with the significant WM × site interaction (Table 3). The
reduction in water use through AWD relative to CF was
remarkably higher in Muñoz DS and Prachin Buri than in Hue
and Jakenan. Water productivity was improved through AWD
from 3.3% in Jakenan WS to 69.0% in Muñoz DS.
3.4. Site-specific EFs and SFs
The EFCH4-CF and EFCH4-AWD are shown in Fig. 5A. Data from DS
and WS in Muñoz are separately presented to reflect the
season-specific responses of CH4 emission to AWD. The
EFCH4-CF and EFCH4-AWD in Hue and Jakenan were significantly
higher than those in Prachin Buri and Muñoz DS. The highest
EFCH4-CF was obtained in Hue followed by Jakenan and Muñoz
 SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT NUTRITION 9

IPCC (2006) IPCC (2006)

(a) (b)
Mean w/o CF Mean w/o
AWD
Mean w Mean w

Hue Hue

Jakenan Jakenan

Prachin Buri Prachin Buri

Munoz DS Munoz DS

MunozWS Munoz WS

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

EF (kg CH4 ha-1 d-1) SF for AWD

Figure 5. CH4 emission-related parameters in the four experimental sites. (A) Emission factors (EF) for CF and AWD. (B) AWD scaling factors (SF). Data in dry season
are shown for Prachin Buri. Data in dry and wet seasons are shown separately for Muñoz. Mean data in dry and wet seasons are shown for Hue and Jakenan. Means
overall sites and seasons with and without Muñoz wet season are separately shown. The horizontal bars for each site indicate the 95% confidence intervals. Bars for
IPCC (2006) indicate the error range given in the IPCC (2006) guidelines. In A panel, the values for Prachin Buri CF and AWD are 0.024 ± 0.027 and 0.031 ± 0.041,
respectively.

WS. Lower EFCH4-AWD than EFCH4-CF was obtained in all the sites
Akiyama et al.
except Muñoz during WS. The weighted-mean EFCH4-CF across (2005)
sites and seasons including Muñoz WS (2.46 ± 0.56 kg ha−1 AWD
Mean w/o
d−1) was slightly higher but not significantly different from the CF
IPCC’s default EF for flooded rice (1.30 kg ha−1 d−1 with error Mean w
range of 0.80–2.20; IPCC 2006). However, it should be noted
that the EFsCH4 reported here were estimated under site-spe- Hue
cific management practices (e.g., the application of farmyard
manure in Jakenan), while the IPCC’s default EF was derived Jakenan
from measurements without organic amendments. The base-
PrachinBuri
line EFCH4 in Jakenan that was measured under CF without
organic amendments in a neighboring field (2.7 kg ha−1 d−1; Munoz DS
Pramono and Setyanto 2015) was 34% lower than that
reported with farmyard manure in this study. Munoz WS
The SFCH4-AWD ranged from 0.57 to 0.84 (excluding Muñoz
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
WS) and did not significantly differ among sites (Fig. 5B). The
weighted-mean SFCH4-AWD of 0.69 (95% bootstrapped CI: 0.61– N2O-N/chemical fertilizer N (%)
0.77) was estimated for across sites and seasons excluding
Figure 6. The ratio of seasonal N2O-N emissions to the total amount of chemical
Muñoz WS. This value was within the range of multiple aeration fertilizer N applied. Data for dry season and wet season are shown separately for
by Sander et al. (2015) (mean: 0.57; error range 0.19–0.86), but Muñoz. Mean data in dry and wet seasons are shown for Hue, Jakenan, and
slightly higher (i.e., weaker mitigation effect) than the IPCC’s SF Prachin Buri. Means overall sites and seasons with and without Muñoz wet
season are separately shown. The horizontal bars indicate the 95% confidence
for multiple aeration of 0.52 (error range: 0.41–0.66; IPCC 2006). intervals.
The mean ratio of seasonal N2O-N emission to inorganic
fertilizer N applied across sites was 0.42% under CF and 0.49%
under AWD including Muñoz WS (Fig. 6). These were comparable
reduced the seasonal CH4 emission at varying levels, except for
to those derived from the original data in Akiyama et al. (2005)
Muñoz WS and Prachin Buri WS (Table 3). In Prachin Buri and
(0.38 ± 0.41% under CF and 0.67 ± 0.22% under mid-season
Muñoz, AWD was unsuitable during WS due to the frequent
drainage; the error range expressed as 95% CIs recalculated
rainfall and the slow drainability of clayey soils. On the other
from the original data). However, as indicated by the overlap of
hand, AWD was effective during WS as well as DS in Hue and
the 95% CIs, the ratio under AWD did not differ from that under
Jakenan, both of which had a loamy soil.
CF in all sites. This agrees with the results of ANOVA that showed
Using the derived multiple regression equation for Hue and
no significant effect of WM on N2O emissions (Table 3).
Jakenan data (Eq. 1), it was extrapolated that a 30% reduction
in CH4 emission (i.e., SFCH4-AWD = 0.70) is more likely to be
4. Discussion achieved with the safe AWD water level threshold of −15cm
when NNFD is >32 (solid line in Fig. 3B). However, this rela-
4.1. Generalities and site-specificities of soil drying
tionship held only to the loamy soils in this study. Although
under AWD
large variabilities in CH4 emission reduction through AWD or
This study used the five criteria to quantitatively describe site- multiple aeration have been reported elsewhere (Sander et al.
specificities in AWD implementation (Table 2). AWD successfully 2015), the corresponding data on surface water level were not
10 A. TIROL-PADRE ET AL.
often documented, making it difficult to explain the variability.
Our results demonstrated, for the loamy soils of Hue and
Jakenan, that the observation of surface water level and
NNFD can improve the precision in SFCH4-AWD estimation.
4.2. Environmental and soil properties affecting the
extent of GHG mitigation by AWD
The loamy soils of Hue and Jakenan exhibited faster drain-
ability of surface water than the clayey soils of Muñoz and
Prachin Buri (Table 2), thereby enabling frequent short-
term drainage events. For this reason, loamy soils may be
regarded more suitable for CH4 emission reduction by
AWD implementation. Yagi et al. (1996) demonstrated
that short-term (i.e., the period from disappearance of
floodwater to re-flooding was short—only about a week)
drainage practices strongly reduced CH4 emissions from
Japanese rice paddy fields and that CH4 emission rates
significantly decreased with an increase in the percolation
rates (Yagi et al. 1998). On the other hand, the clayey soils
of Prachin Buri and Muñoz DS achieved more water sav-
ings (17–47%) than the loamy soils of Jakenan and Hue (6–
15%) through AWD (Table 3). Water use was the highest
among the four sites in Muñoz DS under CF, but was the
lowest under AWD. Thus, water saving efficiency under
AWD was higher in the clayey soils than in the loamy soils.
Higher soil C content, organic fertilizer amendment, and
lower C:N mole ratio that allows faster decomposition of soil
organic matter are the major contributing factors to the high-
est CH4 emission observed in Hue among sites. Moreover, Hue
soil had the most reduced soil condition (Fig. 2). Although
Prachin Buri soil had the highest soil C content, the observed
CH4 emission was the lowest (13.4 kg CH4 ha−1). The soil pH
(H2O) and pH(H2O2) measurements (Table 1) confirmed that it
is an acid sulfate soil (Ahern et al. 1998). The soil active Fe
content in Prachin Buri was also the highest among sites
(Table 1). The presence of sulfate and active Fe slows down
soil reduction and CH4 production, by acting as oxidizing
agents in paddy soils (Takai et al. 1963; Inubushi et al. 1997;
Yagi et al. 1997). In Thai paddy fields, CH4 emission during a
rice growing period ranged from 53 to 787 kg CH4 ha−1 in
freshwater alluvial soils whereas only 8–227 kg CH4 ha−1 in an
acid sulfate soil (Jermsawatdipong et al. 1994). Jugsuhinda
et al. (1996) suggested that CH4 and CO2 productions in
flooded acid sulfate soils of Thailand were primarily governed
by soil oxidation-reduction potential (Eh) and pH, and
reported that the critical Eh and pH levels at which CH4
emission occurred were −150 mV and 6.1, respectively.
Therefore, low soil pH, which limits soil reduction and the
subsequent CH4 production, was the possible factor for the
low CH4 emission in Prachin Buri.
Jakenan soil had the lowest soil total C content among sites
(Table 1) but the EFCH4-CF was the second largest after Hue
(Fig. 5A) due mainly to the application of farmyard manure.
Without the manure application, EFCH4-CF was 2.7 kg ha−1 d−1 in
the same site (Pramono and Setyanto 2015). Muñoz soil had
higher total C and active Fe and Mn contents than Jakenan soil
(Table 1). Although higher soil organic C can increase CH4
production and emission, higher active Fe and Mn contents,
on the other hand, can reduce CH4 emission (Ali et al. 2009;
Smakgahn et al. 2009). Thus, in Muñoz DS, the high Fe and Mn
contents would have primarily contributed to the low EFCH4-CF.
On the other hand, reasons for the high CH4 emissions in
Muñoz WS were provided by Sibayan et al. (2018) as follows:
(1) higher mean air temperature in WS than in DS enhanced the
release of rice root exudates (i.e., C substrates for CH4 produc-
tion) into the soil; (2) greater amount of rice residues (i.e., C
substrates) coming from the previous DS crop was incorporated
during WS; and (3) considerable amount of rainfall in WS
resulted in higher surface water levels both under CF and
AWD. In the same Muñoz site, Corton et al. (2000) reported
2–3 times higher CH4 emissions during WS compared to DS.
Production of N2O in the soil results primarily from micro-
bial nitrification and denitrification processes. Major drivers of
these processes are carbon and nitrogen substrate availability,
temperature, pH, and moisture content (Mosier et al. 1998;
Bouwman et al. 2002; Linquist et al. 2012; Rochette et al. 2008).
A laboratory study showed that N2O emission occurred at a
redox value of 0 mV (Kralova et al. 1992) while Granli and
Bøckman (1994) reported that the soil water content asso-
ciated with maximum N2O emission was close to the field
capacity, suggesting that AWD implementation may stimulate
N2O emissions. Increased N2O emissions under AWD were
observed in Jakenan WS, Muñoz, and Prachin Buri but which
were not enough to completely offset the reductions in CH4
emission; while no increase in N2O emission was observed in
Hue even with AWD. Yagi et al. (1996) also reported very low
N2O emissions from a Japanese paddy field under intermittent
irrigation similar to that in Jakenan. It has been reported that
clayey soils tend to exhibit greater N2O emissions than sandy
soils (Brentrup et al. 2000). This agrees with the higher N2O
emissions observed in the clayey soils of Muñoz and Prachin
Buri than in the loamy soils of Hue and Jakenan.
The contributions of N2O to the total GWP of CH4+N2O
under AWD were only 0.8 and 3.5% in the loamy soils of
Hue and Jakenan, respectively, but were much higher in the
clayey soils of Prachin Buri and Muñoz during DS (44 and 40%,
respectively). The oxygen and moisture status in agricultural
soils depends on soil texture and drainage. Fine textured soils
have more capillary pores within aggregates holding water
more tightly than do coarse soils. As a result, anaerobic con-
ditions may be easily developed and maintained for longer
periods within the aggregates, thereby creating more suitable
conditions for denitrification than in coarse textured soils
(Bouwman et al. 2002). In Muñoz, a large increase in N2O
emissions under AWD during DS occurred just after N fertiliza-
tion, especially when the soil was not irrigated (Sibayan et al.
2018). In the loamy soils of Hue and Jakenan, the N2O emis-
sions were minimized by keeping soil flooded after N fertilizer
application as shown in a study by Furukawa et al. (2007).
4.3. Trade-offs and co-benefits from AWD
The trade-off between CH4 and N2O emissions under AWD
(i.e., increase in N2O contribution to GWP) was observed in all
the four sites, but the degree of which was not enough to
offset the CH4 emission reduction (Table 3). However, N2O
contribution to GWP was considerably high in Muñoz DS and

Prachin Buri because the magnitude of CH4 emissions was
relatively low among sites and as compared to IPCC’s default
EFs (Fig. 5A). This study also found that total C content in the
topsoil was not significantly decreased by AWD implementa-
tion in all the sites after the 3-year field trials (Fig. 4). The
dynamics in soil C is often overlooked in a field study, espe-
cially in tropical region; however, this field campaign demon-
strated that multiple soil aerated conditions developed by
AWD have no negative impact on the total C content in the
topsoil at least for 3 years.
It should be noted that the AWD implementation did not
significantly reduce rice grain yield (Table 3). Lampayan et al.
(2004) argued that safe AWD with the threshold of −15 cm
would not cause any yield reduction because rice roots would
still be able to uptake water from the saturated soil. Our
results therefore confirmed the findings of Lampayan et al.
(2004). In addition, AWDS that modified to a greater or lesser
extent from AWD also exhibited no significant yield penalty.
AWD successfully achieved the water saving and improved
the water productivity in all the sites, especially in Muñoz DS
(Table 3). This result supports the original purpose of imple-
menting (safe-)AWD (Bouman et al. 2007). However, the
degree of water saving differed between soil types (clayey
vs. loamy). Furthermore, this study found that the degree of
water saving was not always consistent with that of CH4
emission reduction in the absolute value. That is, high water
savings through AWD do not always translate to high CH4
emission reduction due to a greater influence of soil proper-
ties. This raises a question that what benefits we expect for
implementing AWD. Because AWD is known as a mitigation
option for paddy GHG emissions so far, the primary role of
AWD is now being questioned.
4.4. Implications to GHG inventories
The emission-related parameters estimated in this study repre-
sent practical ones since they were obtained in the 3-year field
trial with varying weather conditions. These parameters can be
applied to estimate CH4 emissions in GHG inventories, when
the emissions are calculated for a category of paddy fields in
which AWD or similar intermittent flooding management were
conducted, especially in tropical regions. Also, those para-
meters are expected to apply for evaluating the effects of
alternative water management in rice cultivation as a GHG
mitigation option in various GHG mitigation schemes, such
as UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanisms, national appro-
priate mitigation actions, and other emission trading
approaches.
The EFsCH4 obtained in this study greatly varied against the
IPCC’s default values (Fig. 5A) partly because they were
obtained under site-specific management practices. This result
also indicates that the effect of soil type (clayey or sandy, and
acid sulfate soil) should be carefully reflected into the national
GHG inventory in the relevant country.
The higher SFCH4-AWD (i.e., lower CH4 mitigation effect) than
the IPCC’s default SF for multiple aeration partly resulted from
varying weather conditions during the field experiment in four
sites (Fig. 5B). Minamikawa et al. (2014) conducted a long-term
(20 years) model simulation to estimate the effect of
SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT NUTRITION 11
prolonged mid-season drainage on CH4 emission reduction
across nine sites in Japan and found that the simulated
mean effect (20.1% reduction compared to normal mid-season
drainage) was lower than the observed effect in the 2-year
field experiment (30.5%; Itoh et al. 2011). The results of this
study and Minamikawa et al. raise a question that the IPCC’s
default SFs for water regime may be an overestimation of the
actual CH4 emission reduction. It is necessary to distinguish
between the best-effort SF (as IPCC’s) and the practically
feasible SF (as this study’s) for accurate GHG inventory.
Acknowledgments
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 cli-
mate change: Development of mitigation option for greenhouse gases
emissions from agricultural lands in Asia (MIRSA-2).’ We thank the project
members, Dr. Hoa Tran Dang from Hue University of Agriculture and
Forestry, Vietnam; Dr. Prihasto Setyanto from Central Java Assessment
Institute for Agricultural Technology, Indonesia; Dr. Amnat Chidthaisong
from Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s
University of Technology Thonburi, Thailand; and Engr. Evangeline
Sibayan from Philippine Rice Research Institute for providing the data
from the field experiments. We also thank Dr. Yusuke Takata (NARO,
Japan) for evaluating the soil profiles from each study site. The SAS
analyses were run on the supercomputer of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries Research Information Technology Center (AFFRIT), MAFF, Japan.
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 cli-
mate change: Development of mitigation option for greenhouse gases
emissions from agricultural lands in Asia (MIRSA-2).’
References
Adhya TK, Rath AK, Gupta PK, Rao VK, Das SK, Parida KM, Parashar DC,
Sethunathan N 1994: Methane emission from flooded rice fields under
irrigated conditions. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 18, 245–248. doi:10.1007/
BF00647675
Ahern CR, Stone Y, Blunden B 1998: Acid sulfate soils assessment guide-
lines. In Acid Sulfate Soil Management Advisory Committee, Ed. Acid
Sulfate Soil Management Advisory Committee, pp. 56–58. Wollongbar,
NSW.
Ahmad S, Chengfang L, Guangzhao D, Zhan M, Wang J 2009: Greenhouse
gas emission from direct seeding paddy field under different rice tillage
systems in central China. Soil Tillage Res., 106, 54–61. doi:10.1016/j.
still.2009.09.005
Akiyama H, Yagi K, Yan X 2005: Direct N2O emission from rice paddy fields:
summary of available data. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles, 19(1), GB1005.
doi:10.1029/2004GB002378
Ali MA, Lee CH, Kim SY, Kim PJ 2009: Effect of industrial by-products
containing electron acceptors on mitigating methane emission during
rice cultivation. Waste Manag., 29, 2759–2764. doi:10.1016/j.
wasman.2009.05.018
Asami T, Kumada K 1959: A new method for determining free iron in
paddy soils. Soil Plant Food, 5, 141–146. doi:10.1080/
00380768.1959.10430907
Bouman BAM, Lampayan RM, Tuong TP 2007: Water Management in
Irrigated Rice: Coping with Water Scarcity, 54 p. International Rice
Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippine.
12 A. TIROL-PADRE ET AL.
Bouwman AF, Boumans LJM, Batjes NH 2002: Modeling global annual N2O
emissions from fertilized fields. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 16(4), 1080.
doi:10.1029/2001GB001812
Box GEP, Cox DR 1964: An analysis of transformations. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B, 26,
211–252.
Brentrup F, Küsters J, Lammel J, Kuhlmann H 2000: Methods to estimate
on-field nitrogen emissions from crop production as an input to LCA
studies in the agricultural sector. Int. J. LCA, 5, 349–357. doi:10.1007/
BF02978670
Chidthaisong A, Cha-Un N, Rossopa B, Buddaboon C, Kunuthai C,
Sriphirom P, Towprayoon S, Tokida T, Padre A, Minamikawa K 2018:
Evaluating the effects of alternate wetting and drying (AWD) on
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from a paddy field
in Thailand. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr, doi:10.1080/00380768.2017.1399044
Conen F, Smith KA, Yagi K 2010: Rice cultivation. In Methane and Climate
Change, Eds. Reay D, Smith P, van Amstel A, pp. 115–135. Earthscan
Ltd., London.
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. doi:10.1023/A:1009826131741
Fox J, Weisberg S 2011: An R Companion to Applied Regression. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Furukawa Y, Hosen Y, Rodriquez R, Agbisit R 2007: Effect of timing of N
topdressing and irrigation on CH4 and N2O emissions under the AWD
management. In Annual Review and Planning Meeting. IRRI-Japan
Project, Eds. Hosen Y, pp. 94–106. International Rice Research
Institute, Los Baños, Philippines.
Gogoi N, Baruah A, Gogoi B, Gupta PK 2008: Methane emission from two
different rice ecosystems (Ahu and Sali) at lower brahmaputra valley
zone of north east India. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res., 6, 99–112.
doi:10.15666/aeer/0603_099112
Granli T, Bøckman OC 1994: Nitrous oxide from agriculture. Norwegian J.
Agri. Sci. Supp., 12, 1–128.
Harada H, Kobayashi H, Shindo H 2007: Reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions by no-tilling rice cultivation in Hachirogata polder, northern
Japan: life-cycle inventory analysis. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 53, 668–677.
doi:10.1111/j.1747-0765.2007.00174.x
Hou AX, Chen GX, Wang ZP, Cleemput VO, Patrick WH Jr 2000: Methane and
nitrous oxide emissions from a rice field in relation to soil redox and
microbiological processes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 64, 2180–2186. doi:10.2136/
sssaj2000.6462180x
Inubushi K, Hori K, Matsumoto S, Wada H 1997: Anaerobic decomposition
of organic carbon in paddy soil in relation to methane emission to the
atmosphere. Water Sci. Tech., 36, 523–530.
IPCC 2006: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Volume 4: agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Eds. Eggleston S,
Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K. Institute for Global
Environmental Studies (IGES), Hayama, Japan.
Ishibashi E, Yamamoto S, Akai N, Tsuruta H 2009: The influence of no-till
direct seeding cultivation on greenhouse gas emissions from rice
paddy fields in Okayama, western Japan 5: annual emission of CH4,
N2O and CO2 from rice paddy fields under different cultivation meth-
ods and carbon sequestration into paddy soils. Jpn. J. Soil Sci. Plant
Nutr., 80, 123–135. (in Japanese with English summary).
Itoh M, Sudo S, Mori S et al. 2011: Mitigation of methane emissions from
paddy fields by prolonging midseason drainage. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.,
141, 359–372. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.019
Jermsawatdipong P, Murase J, Prabuddham P, Hasathon Y, Khomthong N,
Naklang K, Watanabe A, Haraguchi H, Kimura M 1994: Methane emission
from plots with differences in fertilizer application in thai paddy fields. Soil
Sci. Plant Nutr., 40, 63–71. doi:10.1080/00380768.1994.10414279
Jiao Z, Hou A, Shi Y, Huang G, Wang Y, Chen X 2007: Water management
influencing methane and nitrous oxide emissions from rice field in
relation to soil redox and microbial community. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant
Anal., 37, 1889–1903. doi:10.1080/00103620600767124
Jugsuhinda A, Delaune RD, Lindau CW, Sulaeman E, Pezeshki SR 1996: Factors
controlling carbon dioxide and methane production in acid sulfate soils.
Water Air Soil Pollut., 87, 345–355. doi:10.1007/BF00696846
Kenward MG, Roger JH 1997: An improved approximation to the precision
of fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Comput. Stat. Data
Anal., 53, 2583–2595. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2008.12.013
Kimura M, Ando H, Haraguchi H 1991: Estimation of potential CO2 and CH4
production in Japanese paddy fields. Environ Sci., 4, 15–25.
Ko YK, Lee JS, Kim MT, Kang HW, Kang UG, Lee DC, Shin YG, Kim KY,
Lee KB 2002: Effects of cultural practices on methane emission in
tillage and no-tillage practices from rice paddy fields. Korean J. Sci.
Fertil., 35, 216–222.
Kralova M, Masscheleyn PH, Lindau CW, Patrick WH Jr 1992: Production of
dinitrogen and nitrous oxide in soil suspensions as affected by redox
potential. Water Air Soil Poll., 61, 31–47. doi:10.1007/BF00478364
Kumar J, Viyol SV 2009: Short-term diurnal and temporal measurement of
methane emission in relation to organic carbon, phosphate and sul-
phate content of two rice fields of central Gujarat, India. Paddy Water
Environ., 7, 1116.
Lampayan RM, Bouman BAM, de Dios JL et al. 2004: Adoption of water
saving technologies in rice production in the Philippines. Food and
Fertilizer Technology Center Extension Bulletin 548, 15pp. FFTC,
Republic of China on Taiwan.
Linquist BA, Adviento-Borbe MA, Pittelkow CM, Kessel C, Groenigen KJ
2012: Ferilizer management practices and greenhouse gas emissions
from rice systems: a quantitative review and analysis. Field Crops Res.,
135, 10–21. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2012.06.007
Littell RC, Stroup WW, Milliken GA, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O 2006:
SAS for Mixed Models, 2nd Edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
Minami K, Neue HU 1994: Rice paddies as a methane source. Clim. Change,
27, 13–26. doi:10.1007/BF01098470
Minamikawa K, Fumoto T, Itoh M, Hayano M, Sudo S, Yagi K 2014: Potential
of prolonged midseason drainage for reducing methane emission from
rice paddies in Japan: a long-term simulation using the DNDC-Rice
model. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 50, 879–880. doi:10.1007/s00374-014-0909-8
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.
Mosier AR, Kroeze C, Nevison C, Oenema O, Seitzinger S, Van Cleemput O
1998: Closing the global N2O budget: nitrous oxide emissions through
the agricultural nitrogen cycle. OECD/IPCC/IEA phase II development of
IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse inventory methodology. Nutr.
Cycl. Agroecosys., 52, 225–248. doi:10.1023/A:1009740530221
Myhre G, Shindell D, Breon FM et al. 2013: Anthropogenic and natural
radiative forcing. In Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Eds. Stocker TF, Qin
D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V,
Midgeley PM. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New
York, NY.
Pramono A, Setyanto P 2015: CH4 emission on integrated crop and live-
stock system. Proceedings of National Seminar on Information and
Mapping of Land Resources System Supporting to Self Food
Sufficiency, 29–30 July 2015, IAARD, Indonesian Ministry of
Agriculture, Bogor, pp.283–290.
Rochette P, Angers DA, Chantigny MH, Gagnon B, Bertrand N 2008:
N2O fluxes in soils of contrasting textures fertilized with liquid and
solid dairy cattle manures. Can J. Soil Sci., 88, 175–187. doi:10.4141/
CJSS06016
Rosenberg M, Adams DC, Gurevitch J 2000: Statistical Software for
Meta-Analysis, Version 2.1 Release 5.1. Sinauer Associates Inc.,
Sunderland, MA.
Sander BO, Wassmann R, Siopongco JDLC 2015: Mitigating greenhouse
gas emissions from rice production through water-saving techniques:
potential, adoption and empirical evidence. In Climate Change and
Agricultural Water Management in Developing Countries, Eds. Hoanh
CT, Smakhtin V, Johnston T, pp. 193–207, CABI, Oxford.
Setyanto P, Pramono A, Adriany TA, Susilawati HL, Tokida T, Padre A,
Minamikawa K 2018: Alternate wetting and drying reduces methane
emission from a rice paddy in Central Java, Indonesia without yield loss.
Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. doi:10.1080/00380768.2017.1409600

Sibayan E, Pascual K, Grospe F, Casil ME, Tokida T, Padre A, Minamikawa K
2018: Effects of alternate wetting and drying technique on greenhouse
gas emissions from irrigated rice paddy in Central Luzon Philippines.
Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.doi:10.1080/00380768.2017.1401906
Smakgahn K, Fumoto T, Yagi K 2009: Validation of revised DNDC model for
methane emissions from irrigated rice fields in Thailand and sensitivity
analysis of key factors. J. Geophys. Res., 114, G02017. doi:10.1029/
2008JG000775
Takai Y, Koyama T, Kamura T 1963: Microbial metabolism in reduction
process of paddy soils (Part 2) Effect of iron and organic matter on the
reduction process (1). Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 9, 10–14. doi:10.1080/
00380768.1963.10431049
Tran DH, Hoang TN, Tokida T, Padre A, Minamikawa K 2018: Impacts of alternate
wetting and drying on greenhouse gas emission from paddy field in Central
Vietnam. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.doi:10.1080/00380768.2017.1409601
Wang Z, Delaune RD, Masscheleyn PH, Patrick WH Jr 1993: Soil redox and
pH effects on methane production in a flooded rice soil. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J., 57, 382–385. doi:10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700020016x
Wassmann R, Dobermann A 2006: Greenhouse gas emission from rice
fields: what do we know and where should we head for? The 2nd
Joint International Conference on Sustainable Energy and Environment
(SEE 2006), 21–23 November 2006, Bangkok, Thailand.
Wassmann R, Neue HU, Lantin RS, Buendia LV, Rennenberg H 2000a:
Characterization of methane emissions from rice fields in Asia. I.
Comparison among field sites in five countries. Nutr. Cycl.
Agroecosyst., 58, 1–12. doi:10.1023/A:1009848813994
SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT NUTRITION 13
Wassmann R, Neue HU, Lantin RS, Makarim K, Chareonsilp N, Buendia LV,
Rennenberg H 2000b: Characterization of methane emissions from rice
fields in Asia. II. Differences among irrigated, rainfed, and deepwater
rice. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst., 58, 13–22. doi:10.1023/A:1009822030832
Yagi K, Minami K 1990: Effect of organic matter application on methane
emission from some Japanese rice fields. Soil Sci. Plant. Nutr., 36, 599–
610. doi:10.1080/00380768.1990.10416797
Yagi K, Minami K, Ogawa Y 1998: Effects of water percolation on methane
emission from rice paddies: a lysimeter experiment. Plant Soil, 198,
193–200. doi:10.1023/A:1004379914540
Yagi K, Tsuruta H, Kanda K, Minami K 1996: Effect of water management on
methane emission from a Japanese paddy field: automated methane mon-
itoring. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 10, 255–267. doi:10.1029/96GB00517
Yagi K, Tsuruta H, Minami K 1997: Possible options for mitigating methane
emission from rice cultivation. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys., 49, 213–220.
doi:10.1023/A:1009743909716
Yan X, Yagi K, Akiyama H, Akimoto H 2005: Statistical analysis of the major
variables controlling methane emissions from rice fields. Global Change
Biol., 11, 1131–1141. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00976.x
Yang SS, Chang S 1998: Effect of environmental conditions on methane
production and emission from paddy soil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 69,
69–80. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00098-X
Yao H, Conrad R, Wassmann R, Neue HU 1999: Effects of soil characteristics
on sequential reduction and methane production in sixteen rice paddy
soils from China, Philippines and Italy. Biogeochemistry, 47, 269–295.
doi:10.1007/BF00992910