Water use, energy use efficiency and carbon footprint of transplanted rice (Oryza sativa) in response to surface drainage

V K CHOUDHARY

doi:10.56093/ijas.v88i4.79099

Authors

V K CHOUDHARY Scientist, ICAR-National Institute of Biotic Stress Management, Raipur, 493 225, Chhattisgarh

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v88i4.79099

Keywords:

Carbon footprint, Energy efficiency, Rice productivity, Surface drainage, Water use

Abstract

A field study was undertaken to determine the productivity, water use, energy efficiency, and carbon footprint under enforced surface drainage for 15 days at various growth stages of rice (Oryza sativa L.) during kharif 2011 and 2012. The continuous submergence improved the rice grain yield (3.41 t/ha) and straw yield (4.68 tonnes/ha) over the continuous drainage. The water-use was higher with continuous submergence (15350 m³) followed by alternate wetting and drying, whereas, the lowest water was used with continuous drainage (5400 m³). The continuous submergence consumed the highest total input energy (84.97 x 10³ MJ/ha) and produced 1.23 fold higher output energy, 452.6 of human energy profitability and 0.04 kg/MJ of energy productivity than the continuous drainage. Alternate wetting and drying was the most energy efficient which produced the highest energy ratio (1.53) and energy productivity 0.53). However, the lowest energy intensiveness was noticed with continuous drainage. Similarly, alternate wetting and drying followed by continuous drainage had the lowest carbon footprint and carbon dioxide emission. Thus, submergence of 5-7 cm may be followed as per the availability of water, while, submergence may be avoided for 15 days at tillering under limited water to obtain optimum yield with better energy efficiency.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bouman B A M, Peng S, Castaneda A R and Visperas R M. 2005. Yield and water use of irrigated tropical aerobic rice systems. Agricultural Water Management 74: 87–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2004.11.007

Centritto M, Lauteri M M C and Serraj R. 2009. Leaf gas exchange, carbon isotope discrimination, and grain yield in contrasting rice genotypes subjected to water deficits during the reproductive stage. Journal of Experimental Botany 60: 325-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erp123

Chauhan B S and Abugho S B. 2013. Effect of water stress on the growth and development of Amaranthus spinosus, Leptochloa chinensis and rice. American Journal of Plant Science 4: 989–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2013.45122

Choudhary V K and Kumar P S. 2013. Crop and water productivity, profitability and energy consumption pattern of maize- based crop sequence in North Eastern Himalayan Region, India. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 59(5): 653–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2012.665992

Dass A and Chandra A. 2012. Effect of different components of SRI on yield, quality, nutrient accumulation and economics of rice (Oryza sativa) in tarai belt of northern India. Indian Journal of Agronomy 57(3): 250-4.

de Witt M J M, van den Hurk B, Warmerdam P M M, Torfs P J J F, Roulin E and van Deursen W P A. 2007. Impact of climate change on low-flows in the river Meuse. Climate Change 82: 351–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9195-2

Karimi M, Tabar I and Khubbakht G M. 2008. Energy production in Iran’s agronomy. American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and Environment Science 4: 172–7.

Khanal R C. 2009. Climate change and organic agriculture. Journal of Agriculture and Environment 10: 100–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/aej.v10i0.2136

Kulkarni B D. 2003. Assessment of climate change in India and mitigation policies, pp 62-71. Dash S K and Rao P (Eds). World Wide Fund for Nature–India, New Delhi.

Lal R. 2004. Carbon emission from farm operations. Environment International 30: 981–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2004.03.005

Ma B L, Liang B C, Biswas D K, Morrison M J and McLaughlin N B. 2012. The carbon footprint of maize production as affected by nitrogen fertilizer and maize-legume rotations. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 94: 15–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-012-9522-0

Mandal K G, Sahab K P, Ghosh P K, Hati K M and Bandyopadhyay K K. 2002. Bioenergy and economic analysis of soybean-based crop production systems in central India. Biomass Bioenergy 23(5): 337–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00058-2

Patel G N, Patel P T and Patel P H. 2008. Yield, water use efficiency and moisture extraction pattern of summer groundnut as influenced by irrigation schedules, sulfur levels and sources. Journal of SAT Agricultural Research 6: 1–4.

Peng S, Bouman B, Visperas R M, Casteneda A, Nie L and Park H K. 2006. Comparison between aerobic and flooded rice in the tropics: Agronomic performance in an eight season experiment. Field Crops Research 96: 252–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2005.07.007

Pirdashti H, Tahmasebi S Z and Nematza D G. 2004. Study of water stress effects in different growth stages on yield and yield components of different rice cultivars. (In) 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia.

Singh R J and Ahlawat I P S. 2015. Energy budgeting and carbon footprint of transgenic cotton-wheat production system through peanut intercropping and FYM addition. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 187(5): 1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4516-4

West T O and Marland G. 2002. A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions, and net carbon flux in agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the United States. Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment 91: 217–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00233-X