4.7 Article

Development of methane emission factors for Indian paddy fields and estimation of national methane budget

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 74, 期 4, 页码 590-598

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.09.042

关键词

NATCOM; Inventory; Seasonally integrated flux; Paddy water regimes; Organic amendment

资金

  1. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A state-wise assessment of methane (CH4) budget for Indian paddies, based on a decadal measurement data across India is presented for the calendar year (CY) 1994, the base year for India's Initial National Communication (NATCOM) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), along with national trend from CY 1979 to 2006. The NATCOM CH4 emission factors (EFs) for Indian paddy cultivation areas, generally having less than 0.7% of soil organic carbon (SOC), have been estimated as 17.48 +/- 4 g m(-2) for irrigated continuously flooded (IR-CF), 6.95 +/- 1.86 g m(-2) for rain-fed drought prone (RF-DP), 19 +/- 6 g m(-2) for rain-fed flood prone (RF-FP) and deep-water (DW), 6.62 +/- 1.89 g m(-2) for irrigated intermittently flooded single aeration (IR-IF-SA) and 2.01 +/- 1.49 g m(-2) for IR-IF multiple aeration (MA) paddy water regimes. The state-wise Study for 1994 has indicated national CH4 budget estimate of 4.09 +/- 1.19 Tg y(-1) and the trend from 1979 to 2006 was in the range of 3.62 +/- 1 to 4.09 +/- 1.19 Tg y(-1). Four higher emitting or hot spot states (West Bengal, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh) have accounted for 53.9% of total CH4 emission with RF-FP paddy water regime as the major contributor. CH4 emissions were enhanced by factors such as SOC (similar to 1.5 times due to increase in SOC by similar to 1.8 times), paddy cultivars (similar to 1.5 times), age of seedlings (similar to 1.4 times), and seasons (similar to 1.8 times in Kharif or monsoon than in Rabi or winter season). (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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