4.0 Article

DYNAMICS OF METHANE EMISSION FROM FLODDED RICE SOILS IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL

期刊

REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIA DO SOLO
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 473-481

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIA DO SOLO
DOI: 10.1590/S0100-06832011000200016

关键词

global warming; greenhouse gases; soil reduction; paddy soils

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Paddy soils under flooded rice produce nearly 18% of all methane (CH4) emissions in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. However, CH4 release depends on the intensity of soil reduction. The objective of this study was to evaluate the dynamics of emissions of this greenhouse gas from six representative soils [Albaqualf (2), Endoaqualf (2), Udorthent and Hapludoll] of rice cultivation in southern Brazil, to identify the relation with soil proprieties and electrochemical changes in the soil solution after flooding. The experiment was carried out in a greenhouse with three replications in a randomized block design. Rice was grown in PVC pots filled with soil and covered with a 10 cm water layer. CH4 emissions were evaluated weekly from the 3(rd) to the 66(th) day after flooding, using a gas trap fixed on top of the pots. The gas was collected every five minutes, four times, to estimate CH4 emission rates. Soil solution was collected and analyzed as well. The beginning of CH4 emissions varied according to the soil type and usually occurred when 90 % of Fe3+ had been reduced to Fe2+ and pH and Eh stabilized. Total CH4 emission varied from 8.5 to 44.2 g m(-2) and had a sigmoid relation to soil organic C (r(2) = 0.83, p < 0.05), suggesting that C availability only limited methanogenesis when levels were below 8 g kg(-1) C soil. The results illustrate that the dynamics and total fluxes were strongly affected by the soil type and efforts must be directed toward determining CH4 emission factors for the different representative soil types of rice cultivation in southern Brazil, and agricultural practices to mitigate greenhouse gases from the different soils should be evaluated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据