Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

2014; 3(3): 155-162

Published online May 30, 2014 (http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/aff)
doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20140303.13

Methane emission on intensive rice farming with water

frequency and fertilizer management in North Sumatera
Khadijah EL Ramija1, 2, Zulkifly Nasution1, 3, M. Zarlis1, 4, Retno Widiastuti1, 5
1
Study Program of Natural Resource and Environmental Management, Graduate School, University of Sumatera Utara, Jln. Maas, Medan,
Indonesia
2
Assessment Institute for Agricultural Technology (AIAT), North Sumatera, and the Indonesian Agency For Agricultural Research And
Development (IAARD), Ministry Of Agriculture
3
Departement of Agroecotechnolgy, Faculty of Agriculture University of Sumatera Utara, jln Prof A. Sofyan No 3, Medan Indonesia,
20155
4
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Mathemathics and Natural Sciences, University of Sumatera Utara, Jln. Bioteknologi No. 1,
Medan, Indonesia
5
Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathemathics and Natural Sciences, University of Sumatera Utara, Jln. Bioteknologi No. 1, Medan,
Indonesia

Email address:
Khadijahramija@yahoo.co.id (K. E. Ramija), zulkifli100000@lycos.com (Z. Nasution), m.zarlis@yahoo.com (M. Zarlis),
retnows2002@yahoo.com (R. Widiastuti)

To cite this article:

Khadijah EL Ramija, Zulkifly Nasution, M. Zarlis, Retno Widiastuti. Methane Emission on Intensive rice Farming with Water Frequency
and Fertilizer Management in North Sumatera. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Vol. 3, No. 3, 2014, pp. 155-162.
doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20140303.13

Abstract: Rice cultivation during four planting seasons by using cultivation system improvements, especially in the
management provision of water and fertilizer, other than increasing rice production can also reduce methane emission which is
often rumored as a cause of global warming. Efforts to reduce methane emission from paddy fields must be done because of
the impact of ecological damage caused by climate change due to global warming. It is estimated that by the year 2100 the
average surface temperature of the earth will increase up 2 to 3° C. The experiment was conducted in the village of
Purbaganda, Pematang Bandar District, Simalungun over four planting seasons from July 2011 until June 2012. The research
design used in the study was split plot design which was organized into groups based on the difficulty of obtaining an ideal
environmental uniformity in the field. Watering System treatment as main plot factor (A) and fertilization as subplot factor (B),
with three replications. The treatments in the main plot were intermittent and continuous irrigation system, conducted to
determine the amount of methane emissions in each planting season. For subplot, the fertilization treatments were based on
laboratory analysis of soil, and Fertilization Recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture regulation No. 40 OT.140/2007.
These were then combined with probiotic fertilization. The results showed that the pattern of methane emission varies in each
treatment. The average methane emission was highest in treatment A1B1 with 338.50 kg ha-1 per season, and lowest in A2B6
treatment with 63.25 kg ha-1 per season. A2B6 treatment that used fertilization according to laboratory analysis with probiotic
fertilization experienced intermittent irrigation process. The higher dosage of fertilizer N in treatment A1B1 led to higher
methane emission than treatment A2B6. N fertilizer in rice fields can increase methane emissions due to increased rice growth,
which was the source of methane biomass that increased the emission lines. Interaction between flooding and fertilization
treatments that gave the highest emission during the four planting seasons was A1B1 and the lowest was A2B6. Comparison
between the interaction of A1B1 and A2B6 on methane emission results was significantly different (DMRT test, P = 0.05).

Keywords: Methane Emission, Intensive Rice Cultivation, Intermittent and Fertilization

agricultural activities are grouped as follows: 1) enteric

1. Introduction fermentation; 2) livestock waste management; 3)
According to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate agricultural burning; 4) burning pastures; 5) agricultural
Change [10], sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from lime usage; 6) urea usage; 7) direct and indirect emissions
156 Khadijah EL Ramija et al.: Methane Emission on Intensive rice Farming with Water Frequency and Fertilizer
Management in North Sumatera

of N2O from the soil; 8) indirect N2O emissions from Increased intensity of cropping to increase rice
livestock waste; and 9) irrigated land. Enteric fermentation productivity conducted by Rice Integrated Crop
process emitted methane while the management of Management approach (ICM) is an alternative to intensive
livestock waste produced emissions of methane and N2O. management of rice on irrigated land. ICM components
The sources of N2O emissions from agricultural land include integrated pest management, integrated nutrient,
were from N fertilizer, crop residue management, organic water, and weed treatment which have been proven to
materials, and land conversion that led to mineralization of increase yield rice to 1 t ha-1. In Tamil Nadu, India, ICM
soil organic matter [27]. CO2 emissions came from liming implemented in 2002-2004 planting season increased yields
and urea fertilizing, while non-CO2 emissions came from by 1.5 t ha-1 [2]. Results of upland rice cultivation with
burnt crop residues such as straw (rice, corn, sugarcane) ICM approach reached 4.3 t ha-[22]. In Pinrang, South
and from the burning process done at the time of Sulawesi, agricultural intensification with ICM increased
conversion. Irrigation emitted methane due to anaerobic farmers' income by IDR 1,066,504 ha-1, or 20.7% higher
process that occurred in decomposition of organic matter in than that without ICM [1]. If ICM could suppress GHG
waterlogged rice soils and released into the atmosphere by emissions, this system would be an ideal rice crop
plants [5] [30]. Methane gas volume from wetlands were management because in addition to saving agricultural
affected by the planting season, type of irrigation, organic inputs and increasing grain yield and farmers’ income, it
and non-organic fertilizers, soil type, temperature, and also reduces GHG emissions so the system becomes a
varieties [12]. sustainable and environmentally-friendly approach to rice
Climate change is the most serious challenge facing the cultivation. Wetland area, which has been rated as one
world today. Global warming caused by greenhouse gases emitter of greenhouse gases, will raise some arguments on
(GHG) such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous its feasibility as sustainable wetland management.
oxide (N2O) was often associated with agriculture. This too will have an impact on the decline of paddy
Wetlands are a significant source of methane due to the system benefits. Therefore, it is necessary for an in-depth
waterlogged soil condition that facilitated the formation of study of GHG emissions from this wetland system,
methane. The considerable size of agricultural areas, especially methane emissions during four planting seasons
especially in developing countries, was identified as one of on main plots that used different irrigation treatments
the major sources and contributors to the increase in (continuous and intermittent irrigation). The subplot
atmospheric methane concentrations [24]; [11]. On a treatment used fertilization with varied levels. This study
national scale, contribution of GHG emissions to the total aims to analyze the level of methane emission and
paddy soil are still quite high. Therefore, efforts to reduce determine how much GHG emission of methane on
methane emissions from paddy soil must still be done. technical irrigated wetland during the four seasons.
Mitigation measures chosen should not sacrifice aspects of
production and is local-specific. In addition, mitigation 2. Materials and Methods
efforts priority need to be directed to wetlands ecosystem
that have a high potential for methane emissions, which is The research was conducted in July 2011 to July 2012 in
on irrigated land. Wetland rice fields are an important source the village of Purbaganda, District Bandar Simalungun
of methane, a potent greenhouse gas [24] [11]. The first field Causeway which lies at 03005'03" and 99013'45.9'' with
measurements were done in California [4]; [28], followed by climate type D1 according to Oldeman and ZOM 7
extensive studies in Spain [17] and Italy [7] ; [14]. classification, with average rainfall at 1785 mm/year. The
Methane emission from agricultural land was estimated experimental design used in the study was split plot design
at 100 Tg year-1 [25]; [18]. Indonesia that has 6.8% of the which was organized into groups. This grouping is based
world’s agricultural area allegedly contributed as much on the difficulty of obtaining ideal environmental
methane emissions as 3.4 to 4.5 Tg year-1 Tg (1 Tg = 1012 uniformity in the field. Watering System treatment as main
g). Based on this data, wetlands are not a main contributor plot factor (A) and fertilization as subplot factor (B with
to the increase in global methane emissions. three replications. Treatment of irrigation systems was
Increased cropping index (ICI) is a more practical and intermittent and continuous irrigation system (continuous
realistic step in increasing acreage and harvest towards a flooding) in the main plots, conducted to determine the
sustainable rice production because it does not require a amount of methane emission in each planting season.
relatively large cost and can increase farmers' income, Subplot treatment (fertilization treatment) was based on
regardless of various problems related to changes in laboratory analysis of soil, and Fertilization
environmental quality such as the quality of soil, water, Recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture regulation
GHG especially methane and the development of pests and No. 40 OT.140/2007. These were then combined with
diseases in rice. Research on patterns of change in probiotic fertilization. The treatments carried out were as
environmental quality to an increase in central rice follows:
production was due to the change to 400 Rice Farming 1. Main Plot (A) with two Irrigation Systems:
Index (Rice Cropping Index -400 ) cropping intensity to 1.1. A1 = Irrigation Continuous Flow (continuous
support sustainable rice production. flooding),
 Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2014; 3(3): 155-162 157

1.2. A2 = Intermittent (control flooding), (SAS) version 9,0. Correlation analysis was performed to
2. Sub Plot (B) with eight fertilization systems: examine the relationship between plant parameters with
2.1. B1 = Recommended Fertilization, Minister of methane emissions and was done with Microsoft Excel
Agriculture regulation No. 40 OT.140/2007, 2007.
2.2. B2 = Recommendation Fertilization with
Laboratory analysis, 3. Results and Discussion
2.3. B3 = Regulation of 40 (100% dose) + probiotics,
2.4. B4 = Regulation of 40 (70% dose) + probiotics, 3.1. Methane Emissions
2.5. B5 = Agriculture minister rules 40 ( 40% dose) +
probiotics, Methane emission patterns vary in each treatment as
2.6. B6 = Laboratory analysis (100% dose) + shown in Figure 1. The highest average value of methane
probiotics, emissions occurred in A1B1 treatment in the amount of 349
2.7. B7 = Laboratories Analysis (70% dose) + kg ha-1 per planting season. The lowest occurred in A2B6
probiotics and with 58.33 kg ha-1 per planting season. A1B1 treatment was
2.8. B8 = Laboratory analysis (40% dose) + in accord with Fertilizer Recommendation by Minister of
probiotics. Agriculture regulation No. 40 of 2007 (112.5 N + 27 P2O5
As many as 16 treatments were repeated with 3 + 30 K2O) with continuous flooding process that led to the
replications in order to obtain 48 experimental plots. Linear creation of anaerobic conditions that are very suitable for
equations of the experimental design was in accord with methanogenic bacteria which produced methane.
Gomez and Gomez (1994). Observation data was collected In A2B6 treatment that used fertilization according to
from plant height and productive tillers, plant biomass, soil laboratory analysis (100% dose = 90 N + 40.8 + 22.3 P2O5
pH and methane emission in the field which was measured K2O) with probiotic fertilization, an intermittent irrigation
by using a 50 cm x 50 cm x 103 cm flexiglass box. Gas process occurred. A1B1 used a higher dose of N than A2B6
sampling was conducted at 06.00 am using a 5 ml syringe that led to a higher methane emission than A2B6. N
from polypropilen with extraction interval of 6 minutes. To fertilizer in wetlands can increase methane emission due to
obtain the linearity of methane concentration increase in increased rice growth as the source of methane in the form
one unit of time, four extractions were carried out in each of biomass that increased the emission lines [3].
gas sampling at minute 6, 12, 18, and 24. In one growing
season, gas samples were extracted 3 times per phase.
Phase 1 was done at 1 month days after planting (dap),
phase 2 at 2 months, and phase 3 at 3 months dap. This
sampling was continued throughout the four planting
seasons. Methane concentration in each unit of time was
measured using gas chromatography equipped with flame
ionization detector with a column using N porapak. Injector
temperature was 1100C and column temperature was 920C.
Flux (F) of methane emitted from an area of rice soil was
calculated using the equation adopted from [8] as follows.
Formula:

Figure 1. Methane emissions for four planting seasons

Where:
F: flux of methane (mg/m2/day)
dc/dt: differences in the concentration of methane per
time (ppm/minute)
Vch: volume box (m3)
Ach: area of box (m2)
mW: wide box methane (g)
mV: constant volume of methane (22,411)
T: average temperature during sampling (oC)
Value of 273.2: Kelvin temperature constant.
Data of methane emissions and plant parameters were
analyzed using ANOVA (analysis of variance), and
Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT) was used to see the
significant differences between treatments. The software
used for statistical test was Statistical Analysis System Figure 2. Cumulative methane for four planting seasons
158 Khadijah EL Ramija et al.: Methane Emission on Intensive rice Farming with Water Frequency and Fertilizer
Management in North Sumatera

Methane emission patterns during four planting seasons In A2B6 treatment that used fertilization according to
showed the tendency of increased methane emission due to laboratory analysis with probiotic fertilization, an
increased intensity of cultivation with continuous flooding. intermittent irrigation process occurred. This is consistent
However, in intermittent irrigation, emissions tended to be with studies that showed intermittent treatment produced
constant. Figure 2 shows the cumulative increase in lower emission than continuous flooding. Drying created
methane emissions during the four seasons. The highest aerobic condition in the soil and methanotroph bacteria that
cumulative increase in methane emission in each planting oxidized methane into CO2, therefore, lots of methane were
season occurred in treatment A1B1 with average emissions oxidized before being released into the atmosphere [29].
of 338.5 kg ha-1 per season. The lowest was in treatment Furthermore, [21] proposed that of all the methane
A2B6 (intermittent and fertilization by laboratory analysis produced in the soil only 16.6% were emitted and the rest
as well as the addition of probiotic fertilizer). was oxidized.
Total methane emission during four planting seasons in The low emission from intermittent irrigation was caused
one year is presented in Figure 3. Cumulatively, over the by the increase in soil oxidation-reduction value. Therefore,
four planting seasons, the highest total emission was 1354 indirect reductive decomposition did not occur. Intermittent
kg ha-1 found in treatment A1B1, while the lowest was 253 treatment was intended to regulate land condition to
kg ha-1 in treatment A2B6. This result is consistent with the become dry and waterlogged consecutively. In addition to
results by [29] which suggested that the soil condition with saving water, intermittent irrigation can give roots a chance
continuous flooding emits relatively higher emission than to receive air, allowing it to grow deeper. Intermittent
muddy and intermittent irrigation. irrigation provides benefits to agricultural land such as
preventing iron, preventing accumulation of H2S which can
impede root development, activate beneficial microbes,
reduces collapse rate, reduces the number of unproductive
tillers, harmonize ripening of grain, accelerates harvest
time and eases the immersion of fertilizer in the soil.
According to [20], the total emissions of methane with
various rice crop management are very different, namely:
total methane emissions in inundated non-ICM was 289.93
kg/ha/season; non-ICM with intermittent irrigation was
57.87 kg/ha/ season; ICM with intermittent irrigation was
78.33 kg/ha/season; and ICM with continuous flooding was
347.03 kg / ha / season.

Figure 3. Total methane emissions in each treatment during four planting

seasons
Table 1. The value of F towards methane emissions over four planting seasons

Treatment Planting season I Planting season II Planting season III Planting season IV

A 2374.64 ** 418.29 ** 2320.66 ** 1651.66 **

B 8.00 ** 13.61 ** 13.20 ** 25.00 **

AxB 4.64 ** 8.67 ** 11.95 ** 19.15 **

** = significantly different at 1% level;

A = flooding system; B = fertilization; AxB = interaction between the fertilization and flooding factors

Based on the F value in Table 1, it can be seen that A2B7, and A1B8) also affected the results of methane
treatment flooding system (A), fertilization (B) as well as emissions significantly.
the interaction between irrigation and fertilization From the interaction between flooding and fertilization
treatments (AxB) on methane emission results were treatments (AxB), it can be seen that the highest emission
significantly different at 1% level. This suggests that the during the four planting seasons was in A1B1 and the
different flooding treatments (A1 and A2) had a significant lowest was in A2B6. Comparison between A1B1 and A2B6
effect on the results of methane emissions. Similarly, the interaction on methane emission results was significantly
different fertilizer treatments (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7 different. To see the influence of fertilization and irrigation
and B8) and the interaction of flooding and fertilization on methane emissions during four planting seasons can be
treatments (A1B1, A1B2, A1B3, A1B4, A1B5, A1B6, seen in Table 2.
A1B7, A1B8, A2B1, a2b2, A2B3, A2B4, A2B5, A2B6,
 Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2014; 3(3): 155-162 159

Table 2. Effect of Fertilization and Irrigation on methane emissions during different (DMRT; P = 0.05), but significantly different to
four planting seasons other fertilizers, i.e. B3, B4, B5, B6, B7 and B8.
Treatment PSI PS II PS III PS IV In the second planting season, fertilizer treatment B1
A1B1 320.00 a 349.00 a 345.67 a 339.33 a also gave the highest methane emissions (349.00 kg ha-1)
A1B2 314.67 a 341.33 a 333.00 a 338.00 a followed by B2 and B3. The total emission from all three
A1B3 250.00 bc 320.67 a 266.67 b 225.33 c
was not significantly different, but significantly was to
A1B4 234.67 bcd 244.67 b 218.33 c 262.33 b
A1B5 219.00 cd 256.00 b 250.33 c 233.67 c other fertilizers, i.e. B4, B5, B6, B7 and B8.
A1B6 206.33 d 223.33 b 218.00 c 214.00 c In the third planting season, fertilizer treatment B1 again
A1B7 214.67 cd 241.00 b 224.00 c 217.67 c gave the highest methane emissions (345.00 kg ha-1) followed
A1B8 266.67 b 232.33 b 226.67 c 234.33 c by B2 (333.00 kg ha-1). While both treatments showed nearly
A2B1 87.67 e 87.33 c 75.33 d 75.00 d
equal methane emissions, they were significantly different
A2B2 85.67 e 86.33 c 77.67 d 79.00 d
A2B3 82.33 e 73.33 c 78.00 d 66.33 d compared to B3, B4, B5, B6, B7 and B8.
A2B4 74.67 e 74.33 c 76.00 d 80.67 d The fourth planting season was the same as the previous
A2B5 74.00 e 81.33 c 77.00 d 72.33 d one, with fertilizer treatment B1 emitting the highest
A2B6 69.67 e 58.33 c 64.67 d 60.33 d methane (339.33 kg ha-1) followed by fertilization B2
A2B7 75.33 e 77.33 c 75.67 d 78.33 d
(338.00 kg ha-1). The total was almost equal, but
A2B8 82.00 e 77.33 c 78.67 d 72.33 d
significantly different with B3, B4, B5, B6, B7 and B8.
Equal numbers followed by the same letter are not significantly different In general, during the four cropping seasons, i.e. A1B1
at P = 0.05 DMRT
treatment with continuous flooding that followed the
Fertilization Recommendation by Minister of Agriculture
According to Table 2 it can be seen that the effect of
regulation No. 40 of 2007 showed the highest methane
fertilization on continuous flooding treatment (A1) were
emissions, while the lowest was in intermittent water
significantly different for methane emissions, while
treatment A2B6 with fertilization laboratory analysis
intermittent irrigation treatment (A2) for four planting
(100% dose) and probiotic fertilizer. The effect of
seasons did not significantly affect methane emissions.
fertilization on methane emissions during the four planting
In the first planting season, fertilizer treatment B1 gave
seasons can be seen in Table 3 below.
the highest methane emissions (320.00 kg ha-1) followed
by fertilization B2 (314.67 kg ha-1). Statistically, the total
methane emission from B1 and B2 was not significantly
Table 3. Effect of fertilization on methane emissions during the four planting seasons

Fertilizing PS I PS II PGS III GS IV

B1 203.83 a 218.17 A 210.50 a 207.17 a
B2 200.17 a 213.83 A 205.33 a 208.50 a
B3 166.17 bc 197.00 A 172.33 b 145.83 c
B4 154.67 bc 159.50 Bc 147.17 c 171.50 b
B5 146.50 c 168.67 b 163.67 bc 153.00 c
B6 138.00 c 140.83 C 141.33 c 137.17 c
B7 145.00 c 159.17 Bc 149.83 bc 148.00 c
B8 174.33 b 154.83 Bc 152.67 bc 153.33 c

Equal numbers followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05 DMRT

The effect of fertilizer treatment on methane emission

during the four planting seasons showed that B1 3.2. Correlation of Maximum Number of Tillers with
fertilization that followed the Fertilization Methane Emission
Recommendation by Minister of Agriculture (112.5 N + 27 Correlation of the results of the methane component can
P2O5 + 30 K2O) generally produced the highest methane be seen in Table 4 below.
emissions. The lowest emission produced was in B6 that
utilized laboratory analysis (100% dose N = 90 + 22.3 + Table 4. Correlation of the Component of Methane Emissions
40.8 P2O5 K2O) fertilizer with probiotics. Based on the
DMRT for the four planting seasons, the methane emission Methane Emissions
Yield Component
from B1 was significantly higher than B6. This indicated A1 A2
that fertilization affected the activity of
Productive tillers 0.4236 -0.2522
methanogenic/methanotroph bacteria in forming methane
emissions. Maximum number of tillers 0.2966 -0.3863
160 Khadijah EL Ramija et al.: Methane Emission on Intensive rice Farming with Water Frequency and Fertilizer
Management in North Sumatera

Correlation with the total number of productive tillers tillers, followed by A2B6 with 104 tillers. However, for
with total methane emission showed a positive correlation total emission, A2B6 produced the lowest methane
(r = 0.4236) in the flooding, while intermittent treatment emissions at 253 kg ha-1, while A2B3 produced 300 kg ha-1
showed a negative correlation (r = -0.2522). The same methane emissions.
applies in the relationship that showed the maximum Based on the previous explanation that the lowest
number of tillers. In flooding, the correlation was positive methane emissions was from treatment A2B6, it is
(r = 0.2966), while in intermittent treatment it was negative necessary to see its correlation with the maximum number
(r = -0.3863). These mean that an increase in the number of of tillers with the total methane produced in treatment
productive tillers or maximum number of tillers would A2B6 (Figure 5).
increase the total methane emission by flooding. This is in
line with observations by [26] which showed that the
number of tillers can increase the density and number of
aerenchyma vessels, increasing the transport capacity of
methane. According to [23], the more root exudates formed,
the higher the methane emission will be.
In contrast, in intermittent treatment, an increase in the
number of productive tillers or maximum number of tillers
will not increase the total methane emissions. According to
[21], intensification by using flooded system (anaerobic) will
hamper the biological properties of the soil in addition to
increasing greenhouse gas emissions and inhibit the
development of rice plants root system. Biological diversity is
very limited under anaerobic conditions. Aerobic soil biota can Figure 5. Maximum Number of Tillers in correlation with Total Methane
not develop and it is estimated that only 25% of rice plant treatment A2B6
roots were well-developed. Cropping system with aerobic
(moist) root system production was at least 3-4 times greater From Figure 5, it can be seen that the correlation
compared to flooded system. Optimal development of the root between the maximum number of tillers with the total
system, supported by biodiversity in the soil can increase rice emission was a strong negative correlation (r = -0.5435).
yield potential. The functional relationship between the maximum number
of tillers with the total methane was R2 = 0.1459. This
indicates that the maximum number of tillers affects the
outcome of methane emissions. In A2B6 treatment, if the
number of productive tillers increased, the emission
actually declined.

Figure 4. Maximum Number of tillers in correlation with Total Methane

Emissions

Figure 4 shows the relationship between the maximum

number of tillers with the total amount of methane. The
increase in the number of tillers did not increase the total Figure 6. The number of productive tillers with Total Methane Emissions
methane emission, depending on the treatment. This can be
seen in treatment A1B6, A2B1, A2B3 and A2B6. Treatment From Figure 6 can be seen the correlation between the
A1B6 and A2B6 are B6 fertilization treatments at the same maximum number of tillers with the total emission in each
dosage (90 N + 22.3 + 40.8 P2O5 K2O) with probiotic treatment. The graph shows that the increase in the total or
fertilizer. Therefore, it can be concluded that B6 number of productive tillers did not increase the total
fertilization produced the lowest total methane emissions methane emission, depending on the treatment. The highest
with continuous or intermittent flooding. The maximum number of productive tillers during four planting seasons in
number of tillers during four planting seasons in one year a year was in treatment A2B3 with 56 tillers followed by
was the highest in treatment A2B3 in the amount of 105 A2B6 with 53 tillers.
 Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2014; 3(3): 155-162 161

3.3. Correlation of Productive Number of Tillers with (ICM): Field evaluation and lesssons learnt In Sumarno,
Methane Emission Suparyono, A.M. Fagi, M.O. Adnyana (Eds.). Rice Industry,
Culture and Environment. Book 1. Indonesian Center for
Based on the previous explanation that the lowest Rice Research. p. 33-42.
methane emissions was from treatment A2B6, it is [3] Cheng-Fang, L., Dan-Na, Z., Zhi-Kui, K., Zhi-Sheng. Z.,
necessary to see its correlation with the number of Jin-Ping, W., Ming-Li. C., and Cao Cou-Gui, C. 2011.
productive tillers with the total methane produced in Effects of Tillage and Nitrogen Fertilizers on methane and
treatment A2B6 (Figure 7). CO2 Emissions and Soil Organic Carbon in Paddy Fields of
Central China. National Tecnology Project for High Food
Yield of China. On line :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3344821/

[4] Cicerone, R. J., And J. D. Shetter. 1981. Sources of

atmospheric methane: measurements in rice paddies and a
discussion. Journal of Geophysics Research 86C: 7203–
7209.

[5] Conrad, r., and f. Rothfuss. 1991. Methane oxidation in the

soil surface layer of a flooded rice field and the effect of
ammonium. Biology and Fertility of Soils 12: 28–32.
(Cicerone & Shetter, 1981; Cicerone et al., 1983)

[6] Gomez, A.K. And A.A. Gomez. 1994. Statistical Procedures

For Agricultural Research. Translation. Sjamsuddin, E and S.
B. Yustika (1995). Prosedure Statistics to Research.
Figure 7. Total Productive Tillers relationship with Total Methane
Puslisher University of Indonesia Press. Jakarta. 689 p.
treatment A2B6
[7] Holzapfel-P Schorn A, Conrad & Seiler W, 1986. Production
From Figure 7, it can be seen that the correlation of Methane in rice Padies. Fems icrobiol. Ecol 31: 343-351
between the total number of productive tillers with the total
[8] (IAEA). 1993. Manual on measurement of methane and
e mission was a strong negative correlation (r = -0.7504).
nitrous oxide emission from agricultural. Vienna.
The functional relationship was R2 = 0.7994, greater than
the maximum number of tillers with R2 = 0.1459. This [9] IPCC-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (1997a).
indicates that the maximum number of tillers affects the Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
Workbook, Chapter 4.3, Agriculture: Rice Cultivation.
outcome of methane emissions.
OECD, Paris, France.

[10] IPCC-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2006).

4. Conclusions and Recommendations Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
Reference Manual, Chapter 4.3, Agriculture: Methane
Intensive rice cultivation by increasing cropping emission from rice cultivation. OECD, Paris, France.
intensity does not degrade the quality of soil and water
[11] IPCC (International Pannel For Climate Change) . 1994 .
quality and methane emission can be reduced by up to
Climate change 1994. Cambridge University Press,
66.05% with ICM approach. Methane emissions during Cambridge, UK.
planting season with four treatments showed that A1B1
with continuous flooding that followed the Minister of [12] Minami, K. (1995) The effect of nitrogen fertilizer use and
other practices on methane emission from flooded rice.
Agriculture regulation on Fertilization Recommendation
Fertilizer Res. 40:71-84.
No. 40 of 2007 produced the highest methane emissions.
The lowest emission was in A2B6 with intermittent [13] Makarim, A. K., A. Bey, R. Boer and P. Setyanto (1995).
flooding that followed fertilization laboratory analysis Methane gas from lowland rice fields in Indonesia:
Development and research directions (in Indonesian).
(100% dose) with probiotic fertilizer. The number of
Central Research Institute for Food Crops, Bogor, Indonesia.
productive tillers was more influential on the outcome of
methane emissions than the maximum number of tillers. In [14] Schütz H., A. Holzapfel-Pschorn, R. Conrad, H. Rennenberg
A2B6 treatment, if the number of productive tillers and W. Seiler (1989). A three-year continuous record on the
influence of daytime season and fertilizer treatment on
increased, the emission actually declined.
methane emission rates from an Italian rice paddy field.
Journal of Geophysical Research 94: 16405-16416.

[15] Schütz H., Seiler W & Lonrad R (1994) Methane Production

References And Emmision From Four Reclaimed Pristine Wetlands of
[1] Arafah. 2005. Assessment Intensification rice field base on South Eastern United States Soil sciense Am. J. 58: 1270-
Integrated Crop Management in Pinrang Regency. South 1275
Sulawesi Assessment Institute for Agricultural Technology.
[16] Setyanto P, A. Karim Makarim and Mudzakkir Fagi, 1997.
http://jabar. litbang.deptan. go.id/html.tp.html [05 Jan 2007].
Methane Emission From Rainfed Rice Fields at Jakenan,
[2] Balasubramanian, V. 2006. Integrated Crop Management Central Java as affected by Organic Matter and Water Condition.
162 Khadijah EL Ramija et al.: Methane Emission on Intensive rice Farming with Water Frequency and Fertilizer
Management in North Sumatera

[17] Seiler, W., A. Holzapfel-Pschorn, R. Conrad And D. Scharfe Atmosphericcirculation to Global Change. The Institute of
(1984). Methane Emission From Rice Paddies. Journal Of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academic of Sciences, p
Atmospheric Chemistry 1: 241-268. 647-659. China Meteorological Press Beijing.
[18] Seiler, W., Conrad, R., Scharffe, D., 1984. Field studies of [25] Yagi, K. and K. Minami. 1990. Effects of organic matter
methane emission from termite nests into the atmosphere applications on methane emisión from Japanese paddy fields.
and measurements of methane uptake by tropical soils. In A.F. Bouwan (Eds.). Soil and the greenhouse effect. John
Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry 1, 171-186. Wiley and Sons. New York. p.467-473.

[19] Setyanto, P. 2004. Methane emission and its mitigation in [26] Aulakh, M.S., R. Wassamann, H. Rennenberg, and S. Fink.
rice field under different management practices in Central 2000. Pattern and amount of Aerenchyma realate to variable
Java. Disertasi Fakultas Pascasarjana University Putra methane transport capacity of different rice cultivars. Plant
Malaysia. Biology 2: 182-194.

[20] Setyanto P and Rina K, 2008. Management systems rice [27] Bouwman, A. F., Boumans L.J.M., Batjes N.H., 2002.
field low metan emissions. A Journal. A Journal Agricultural Emissions of N2O and from fertilized fields: summary of
Reseach Food Crop. Volume 27. available measurement data. Global Biogeochem Cycles, 16:
art.no. 1058
[21] Setyanto, P. 2004. Mitigation methane of rice field. In F.
Agus et al. (Eds.). The low land and management [28] Cicerone, R. J., And J. D. Shetter and C.C. Delwiche, 1983.
technology. The central research and development of Soil Seasonal variation of methane flux from California rice
and agroklimat. Bogor. P. 287-294. paddy. J. Geophys. Res., 88:11,022-11,024

[22] Toha, H.M., Permadi K., Prayitno, and I. Yuliardi. 2005. The [29] Setyanto P., Suharsih, A,K Makarim, and J. Sasa. 1999.
increase production of upland rice with integrated crop Inventory of emissions and mitigation of methane on rice
management and integrated resources. Indonesian Center for field in Jakenan. Symposium on Food Crops IV, Bogor, 22-
Food Crops Reseach and Development. Seminar. Bogor. 24 November 1999.. Indonesian Center for Food Crops
July, 2005 Reseach and Development (ICFORD). Bogor

[23] Wihardjaka, 2001. Methane emission in low land irigation [30] Nouchi I, Mariko S, Aoki K (1990) Mechanism of methane
with aplication of several organic matter. Agrivitas 23 (1):
[31] transport from the rhizosphere to the atmosphere through
[24] Wang M, Shangguan X& Ding A (1996). Methane in rice plants.Plant Physiology, 94, 59–66.
riceagriculture in from Cicerone et al., 1983