Next Article in Journal
Comparison of Hyperspectral Imagery and Physiological Characteristics of Bentazone-Tolerant and -Susceptible Soybean Cultivars
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Vegetable–Fish Co-Culture on CH4 and N2O Emissions from an Aquaculture Pond
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Cotton Production through Increased Competitiveness: Analysis of Comparative Advantage and Influencing Factors of Cotton Production in Xinjiang, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Differential Physiological Response and Potential Toxicological Risk of White Cabbage Grown in Zinc-Spiked Soil
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/agronomy12102240
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Product Type, Rice Variety, and Agronomic Measures Determined the Efficacy of Enhanced-Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizer on the CH4 Emission and Rice Yields in Paddy Fields: A Meta-Analysis

by
Tong Yang
†,
Mengjie Wang
†,
Xiaodan Wang
,
Chunchun Xu
,
Fuping Fang
and
Fengbo Li
*
China National Rice Research Institute, Hangzhou 310006, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Agronomy 2022, 12(10), 2240; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12102240
Submission received: 23 August 2022 / Revised: 9 September 2022 / Accepted: 16 September 2022 / Published: 20 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Farming in Harmony with Nature)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Enhanced-efficiency nitrogen fertilizer (EENF) is a recommend nitrogen fertilizer for rice production because of its advantage on improving nitrogen use efficiency. However, its efficacy on CH4, the dominant greenhouse gas, emission from rice fields showed great variation under field conditions. And the factors influencing its efficacy are still unclear. We synthesized the results of 46 field studies and analyzed the impact of product type, rice variety, and primary agronomic measures (rice cropping system, nitrogen (N) application rate, and water management options) on the effectiveness of EENF on the CH4 emission and rice yield. Overall, EENF, including inhibitors (IS) and slow/control-released fertilizer (S/CRF), significantly reduced CH4 emission by 16.2% and increased rice yield by 7.3%, resulting in a significant reduction in yield-scaled CH4 by 21.7%, compared with conventional N fertilizer. Nitrapyrin, DMPP (3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate), and HQ (Hydroquinone) + Nitrapyrin showed relative higher efficacy on the mitigation of CH4 emission than other EENF products; and HQ showed relative lower efficacy on rice yield than other EENF products. The reduction in CH4 emission response of hybrid rice varieties to IS and S/CRF was greater than that of inbred rice varieties. IS significantly reduced the CH4 emission and increased the rice yield under all three rice cropping systems, and showed the highest efficacy in the late rice season of double rice cropping system. Whereas, S/CRF did not significantly reduce the CH4 emission from rice seasons of single rice cropping system and rice-upland crops rotation system. IS did not reduce the CH4 emission when N application rate less than 100 kg ha−1, and S/CRF did not affect the CH4 emission when N application rate less than 100 kg ha−1 or above 200 kg ha−1. Continuous flooding was unfavorable for IS and S/CRF to mitigate CH4 emission and enhance rice yield. These results emphasized the necessary to link EENF products with rice varieties and agronomic practices to assess their efficacy on CH4 emissions and rice yield.

1. Introduction

Increasing crop yields with less greenhouse gas (GHG) emission is a great challenge in future crop production. Rice is one of the most important stable foods, which feeding around 3 billion world population. Rice planting area and production was 1.67 × 108 ha and 7.82 × 108 t respectively, accounting for 23.0% and 26.4% of the total cereals around the world in 2018 [1]. However, rice production was also considered to be an important agricultural source of CH4 emission, which were responsible for 17.6% of global agricultural CH4 emission [1]. Global demand for rice is expected to increase over 50% by 2050 [2]. It is a great challenge to meet future rice demand with less CH4 emission.
Chemical nitrogen (N) fertilizer plays a vital role in enhancing rice yield in the past 50 years [3]. The fertilizer N input in rice production was 507.5 Tg around the world during 1961 and 2010 [4]. There is a great concern whether massive N input may stimulate CH4 emission from rice fields. The effects of N fertilizer on CH4 emission from rice fields were complex. N fertilizer can affect all the three processes of CH4 production, oxidation, and transport in the soils, and the effects are either positive or negative on CH4 emission from rice fields [5]. On the one hand, fertilizer N can prompt the growth of rice plant and then increase the substrate carbon supply for methanogenic bacteria or favor the transportation of CH4 from soil to atmosphere [6,7]. On the other hand, fertilizer N can stimulate the growth and activities of methanotrophic bacteria and increase CH4 oxidation [8]. The net effect of N fertilizer on CH4 emission was affected by N source and agronomic measures [9].
Enhanced efficiency nitrogen fertilizers (EENF) are developed to improve the N use efficiency by regulating the release of fertilizer N to better meet crop needs and thereby reduce N losses to the environment [10,11,12]. The main products of EENF are polymer-coated slow or control release fertilizer (S/CRF) and common N fertilizer combined with nitrification inhibitor (NI), urease inhibitor (UI), and double inhibitors of UI + NI (DI). Previous meta-analysis mostly focused on the effectiveness of EENF on N2O emission from agricultural fields [13,14,15,16]. As in rice fields, CH4 accounted nearly 90%, far more than N2O, to the total global warming potential (GWP). However, it is still difficult to draw a general conclusion on the effect of EENF on CH4 emission from rice fields because the performance of EENF on CH4 showed great variety under field conditions. Previous field experiments showed that EENF significantly reduced [17], or significantly increased [18], or did not affect [19] CH4 emission from rice fields as compared with normal N fertilizer. Thus, it’s necessary to make a quantitative and systemic analysis to identify the factors influencing the efficiency of EENF on the mitigation of CH4 emission from rice fields. Additionally, EENF affected both the CH4 emission and rice yields. An integrate assessment on the efficacy of EENF on the CH4 emission and rice yields was beneficial for the balance of CH4 mitigation and rice yields enhancement.
In this study, we hypothesized that the efficacy of EENF on CH4 emission and rice yield is highly dependent on the changes of agronomic practices. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to: (1) evaluate the effects of EENF on CH4 emission and rice yields compared with conventional N fertilizer in rice fields; (2) evaluate the impacts of product type, rice variety, and agronomical measures, including cropping system, fertilizer N application rate, and water management, on the efficacy of EENF.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

We used ISI-Web of Science and Google Scholar to extensively search peer-reviewed papers published before April 2021 that reported the effects of EENF on CH4 emissions and rice yields. The keywords used in literature search were “nitrification inhibitor”, “urease inhibitor”, “slow/control-released fertilizer”, “CH4”, “rice yield”, and “paddy fields”. To select suitable studies, we used the following five criteria: (1) studies must be conducted in rice fields with at least three replications, pot or incubation experiments were excluded; (2) the treatment (EENF) and control (conventional N fertilizer) must have the same N application rate, rice varieties, and farmland management options; (3) CH4 must be measured by the closed static chamber for the whole rice growing season; (4) rice yield was reported; (5) fertilizer application methods, experimental duration, and water management practices were clearly recorded. Based on the above criteria, a total of 46 papers (including 194 comparisons) were selected for analysis. Details of the selected studies and the data collected are listed in (Table 1).
EENF was classified as two groups (inhibitors (IS) and slow/control-released fertilizer (S/CRF) based on their action mode in this analysis (Table S1). IS was further categorized into three sub-groups: nitrification inhibitor (NI), urease inhibitor (UI), urease and nitrification inhibitors (UI + NI). The detailed information of products of IS and S/CRF used in selected studies were listed in (Table S1). In present analysis, the most commonly used NIs were DMPP (3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate), DCD (dicyandiamide), Nitrapyrin, and Neem (including neem oil, neem cake, and nimin); and the most tested UI products were HQ (Hydroquinone) and NBPT (N-(N-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide). Other NI and UI products, such as Karanjin (3-methoxy furano-2’, 3’, 7, 8-flavone), MHPP (methyl 3- (4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate), and NPPT (N-(N-Propyl) thiophosphoric triamide), were tested only in one or two studies. The S/CRF products used in selected studies were divided into two groups: polymer-coated and sulphur-coated fertilizers, according to the coating materials.
Rice variety and three agronomic practices (cropping system, N fertilizer application rates, and water management options). Rice variety was divided into two groups: hybrid variety and inbred variety. N application rates was divided into three levels: ≤100 kg ha−1, 100–200 kg ha−1, ≥200 kg ha−1. Cropping system was classified as four groups: rice season of SRS (single rice cropping system), rice season of RUS (rice-upland crops rotation system), early rice season of DRS (double rice cropping system), and late rice of DRS (double rice cropping system). Water management methods during rice growing season was grouped into three categories: continuous flooding, intermittent flooding, and un-flooding.

2.2. Data Analysis

In this meta-analysis, we analyzed three effect sizes, including CH4 emission (kg ha−1), rice yield (t ha−1), and yield-scaled CH4 emission (kg t−1). The effects of EENF on CH4, rice yield and yield-scaled CH4 were evaluated by the response ration (lnR) [63]:
lnR = ln   ( X t X c )
where the Xt and Xc represent the measured values of the treatment (EENF) and control (conventional N fertilizer), respectively. It is important to note that only studies that included one-to-one comparisons were used for analysis. Furthermore, the mean response ratio was calculated by the following formula:
RR = ∑   ( lnR   ×   W i ) / ∑   W i
In Formula (2), the Wi was the weighting factor and estimated by following equation [15]:
W i = n   ×   f  
where n and f represent the numbers of replications of the treatment and the flux measurements per month, respectively. The percentage change in each index was calculated according to Equation (4):
Change   ( % ) = ( e RR −   1 )   × 100
where RR denotes the mean effect size of the response ratio in Equation (2), and e is the natural base number.
We used the Metawin2.1 software (Version 2.1. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, USA) for this meta-analysis, along with a random effects model and bootstrapping using 4999 iterations to calculate the mean effect size and 95% convenience interval (CI) [64,65]. Mean effect sizes were considered to be significantly different only when the 95% CI did not overlap.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Overall Effect of EENFs

Overall, EENF significantly reduced CH4 emission by 16.2%, and significantly increased rice yield by 7.3%, resulting in a significant reduction in yield-scaled CH4 by 21.7%, compared with conventional N fertilizer (Figure 1). IS and S/CRF did not present significant difference on CH4, rice yield, and yield-scaled CH4 emission. The effect sizes of IS and S/CRF on rice yield were close to the results of previous meta-analysis [66,67]. The effect of IS and S/CRF on rice yield did not show significant relationship with their effects on CH4 emission (Figure S1). Both IS and S/CRF significantly reduced the yield-scaled CH4 emission.

3.2. Differences among EENF Products

The effect size of the different EENF products differed significantly (Figure 2). Nitrapyrin and DMPP were more effective than DCD and Neem on the mitigation of CH4 emission. Nitrapyrin and DMPP significantly reduced the CH4 emission by 29.2% and 26.8% compared with conventional N fertilizer, respectively. DCD and Neem did not significantly affect the CH4 emission. This was possibly because that Nitrapyrin and DMPP were more effective than DCD and Neem to inhibit the transformation of NH4+ to NO3− in the soil because of their less mobility and slower degradation rate [68,69]. NH4+ is benefit to promote the CH4 oxidation in rice fields [43]. Thus, stronger inhibition of Nitrapyrin and DMPP on the nitrification process may greatly strengthen the oxidation of CH4 and result in more reduction in CH4 emission from rice fields. All four NI products significantly increased the rice yield. Nitrapyrin showed the highest efficacy on the mitigation of yield-scaled CH4 emission, followed by DMPP.
As for the UI products, HQ and NBPT significantly reduced the CH4 emission and significantly increased rice yield compared with conventional N fertilizer. The effect size of NBPT on rice yield was significantly higher than that of HQ. This was possibly because that NBPT was more effective for increasing N uptake and dry matter accumulation by rice plants due to its higher efficacy to inhibit urea hydrolysis and N loss as ammonia volatilization than HQ [70,71]. Dual application of HQ with nitrapyrin or DCD had an intermediate effect on CH4 emission and rice yields related to separate application of these inhibitors. Combination of inhibitors can improve the efficacy of less effective products. For example, Dual application of HQ + nitrapyrin and HQ + DCD increased more rice yields than separate application of HQ as compared with conventional N fertilizer. HQ + DCD significantly reduced the CH4 emission, while separate application of DCD did not significantly reduce the CH4 emission, as compared with conventional N fertilizer.

3.3. Impacts of Rice Varieties

The efficacy of EENF on CH4 emission presented significantly difference among rice varieties (Figure 3). IS significantly reduced 23.6% of the CH4 emission from the rice fields cultivated hybrid rice varieties compared with conventional N fertilizer, which was significantly higher than that of inbred rice varieties (8.2%). The main pathway of rice varieties influencing CH4 emission was the regulation of rice plants on belowground CH4 production and oxidation [72]. Rice varieties allocating more photosynthetic carbon, an important substrate for belowground CH4 production, to aboveground than belowground organs were benefit to reduce the CH4 production in paddy soils [73]. Hybrid rice varieties had larger leaf area index and more efficient translocation of carbohydrates to aboveground parts, including culm, leaf sheath, and spikelets, than ordinary inbred rice varieties [74], which may mitigate the substrate carbon for belowground CH4 production. Additionally, hybrid rice varieties had larger root biomass and higher root activity that can release more oxygen into the soil compared with ordinary rice varieties [75,76]. The total copy number of functional genes related to CH4 oxidation (pmoA genes) in the rhizosphere were higher for hybrid rice varieties than ordinary inbred rice varieties [77]. The growth rate and N uptake were higher for hybrid than inbred rice varieties [78]. IS stabilized the fertilizer N in the soil, which may further prompt the growth the hybrid rice varieties and strengthen their positive effects on inhibiting CH4 production and on enhancing CH4 oxidation. This was supported by the results of rice yield (Figure 3). IS tended to increase more rice yield for hybrid than inbred rice varieties. The mitigation of IS on yield-scaled CH4 emission was significantly higher for hybrid (29.2%) than inbred (13.5%) rice varieties.
Similarly, S/CRF presented significantly higher efficacy for hybrid than inbred varieties. S/CRF significantly reduced the CH4 emission by 27.2% and significantly increased rice yield by 9.3% for hybrid varieties compared with conventional N fertilizer, which were close to the effect size of IS. However, S/CRF did not significantly affect the CH4 emission and rice yield for inbred varieties. The average N application rates for four subgroups in Figure 3 were 170.1 kg ha−1 for IS-Hybrid varieties, 171.7 kg ha−1 for IS-Inbred varieties, 192.3 kg ha−1 for S/CRF-Hybrid varieties, and 193.7 kg ha−1 for S/CRF-Inbred varieties, respectively. The average fertilizer N application rate for the subgroup of S/CRF-Inbred varieties was close to the optimal N rate for inbred varieties [79,80]. S/CRF may not further prompt the growth of inbred varieties as compared with conventional N fertilizer. Relative higher N application rate may weaken the efficacy of S/CRF on the CH4 emission and yield of inbred varieties.

3.4. Impacts of Cropping Systems

We analyzed four rice seasons of three typical rice cropping systems (SRS, RUS, and DRS). DRS has two rice cropping seasons: early and late rice seasons. As shown in Figure 4, IS is more effective on the mitigation of CH4 emission from late rice season of DRS than other rice seasons. The CH4 emission from late rice season of DRS was reduced 40.6% by IS, which was significantly higher than that of other three rice seasons. Previous studies have reported that the CH4 emission density was significantly higher for the late rice of DRS than the rice seasons of other cropping systems, which was primarily attributed to the abundant fresh crop straw incorporated into the soil followed immediately flooding in the late rice season [81]. Speedy anaerobic decomposition of fresh residue of early rice greatly stimulated the CH4 emission from late rice season [82,83]. Rice straw has a high carbon/nitrogen ratio (commonly between 60–100), the decomposition of rice straw needed sufficient N supply [84]. IS slowed down the urea hydrolysis and nitrification, and then decreased the N supply for straw decomposition, which may greatly mitigate the CH4 production from straw decomposition [82]. IS significantly increased the yield of late rice of DRS by 13.0%, which was significantly higher than its efficacy on the rice yield of SRS and RUS. This was possibly because that the rice growing days of late rice (88 days) were shorter than that of SRS (122 days) and RUS (119 days). The delayed release of NH4+ by IS was commonly less than 100 days [85,86]. Therefore, IS may regulate the N supply better match with rice crop demand in short growth duration.
S/CRF also performed better in double rice system than other two rice systems (Figure 4). S/CRF significantly recued the CH4 emission from the early rice season and late rice season of DRS, but did not affect the CH4 emissions from the rice seasons of SRS and RUS. This was possibly because that DRS primarily located in tropical and southern sub-tropical regions, the CH4 production potential and emission density were higher than SRS and RUS attributed to the higher temperature during rice growing season [81]. The suppression of N supply by S/CRF may inhibit more CH4 emission in DRS than SRS and RUS.

3.5. Impacts of Fertilizer N Application Rates

The efficacy of EENF on CH4 emission and rice yield varied with fertilizer N application rates (Figure 5). The effect size of IS on CH4 decreased with fertilizer N application rate (Figure 5 and Figure S2, Supplementary Materials). IS did not affect the CH4 emission when N application rates less than 100 kg ha−1, but significantly reduced CH4 emission when N application rates above 100 kg ha−1. The N fertilizers used in rice fields are ammonium-based inorganic N fertilizer, which affects both the production and oxidation processes of CH4 in rice soils [9]. On the one hand, ammonium-based N fertilizers can stimulate CH4 production by stimulate the growth and activities of methanogenic bacteria and by prompting rice plant growth, thus increasing the organic carbon substrates (e.g., root exudates) supply for methanogenic bacteria [5]. On the other hand, NH4+ released from N fertilizers can stimulate the CH4 oxidation by enhance the growth and activities of methanotrophic bacteria especially in the rice rhizosphere [8]. The integrated effect of N fertilizer on CH4 production and oxidation was varied with N application rates. We speculated that, when N application rate was less than 100 kg ha−1, rice plants outcompete methanogenic and methanotrophic bacteria for fertilizer N due to limited N supply [87]. The inhibition of N release by IS primarily benefit the rice uptake, and further strengthened the N limitation to methanogenic and methanotrophic bacteria. Thus, IS significantly increased the rice yield, but did not affect the CH4 emission. When N application rates increased to above 100 kg ha−1, the competition for N between rice and methanogenic and methanotrophic bacteria was alleviated. The suppressing of the nitrification of NH4+ by IS may greatly enhance the growth and activities of methanotrophic bacteria, thus significantly reducing the CH4 emission, as compared with conventional N fertilizer. Regard to rice yields, the positive effect of IS on rice yields decreased with N application rates (Figure 5 and Figure S2). This was possibly because that the marginal effect of IS on promoting rice growth was decreased with N application rates.
Similar as IS, S/CRF did not affect the CH4 emission when N application rates less than 100 kg ha−1, but significantly reduced the CH4 emission when N application rates between 100 and 200 kg ha−1, compared with conventional N fertilizer (Figure 5). However, different from IS, the effect of S/CRF on CH4 emission was not significant when N application rates was increased to above 200 kg ha−1. This may be due to the difference in action mode of IS and S/CRF. Previous studies reported that NH4+ in the soils benefit the CH4 oxidation [8]. IS inhibited the transformation of NH4+ to NO3−, thus greatly stimulated the CH4 oxidation and reduced the CH4 emission. While S/CRF only delayed the release of NH4+. When N application rate was above 200, the N supply is sufficient for rice. The delayed released NH4+ may not immediately absorbed by rice.

3.6. Impacts of Water Management Methods

The performance of IS on CH4 emission also varied with water management methods (Figure 6). IS did not significantly affect CH4 emission under continuous flooding compared with conventional N fertilizer. The positive effect of IS on CH4 oxidation was limited by the presence of O2 in the soils. CF inhibited the diffusion of O2 into the soils [9], thus weakened the effect of IS on CH4 emission. Decreasing flooding time during rice growing stage can enhance the positive effect of IS on CH4 mitigation. The CH4 emission was significantly reduced 24.9% by IS than conventional N fertilizer under intermittent flooding (Figure 6). However, excessively decreasing flooding time wakened the mitigation of IS on CH4 emission. IS only reduced CH4 emission by 7.9% under un-flooding, which was significantly lower than that under intermittent flooding (Figure 6). This was possibly because that the positive effect of IS on CH4 oxidation was weakened under un-flooding condition. Firstly, the CH4 production rate was greatly decreased when the soil was un-flooded. Lower CH4 concentration in the soil may reduce the CH4 oxidation. Secondly, Methanotrophs can switch substrate from CH4 to ammonia under un-flooding soils [88]. IS inhibited the nitrification processes and increased the ammonia in the soils, thus decreasing the CH4 oxidation. The effect of IS on rice yield did not affect by water management methods. IS significantly increased the rice yields under three water management methods compared with conventional N fertilizer. And the yield-scaled CH4 was significantly reduced by 10.3%, 29.5%, and 10.0% under continuous flooding, intermittent flooding, and un-flooding conditions, respectively.
S/CRF significantly reduced the CH4 emission by 16.9% and 20.4% and significantly increased the rice yield by 6.8% and 6.7% under intermittent flooding and un-flooding compared with conventional N fertilizer, respectively (Figure 6). However, its effect on CH4 emission and rice yields was not significant under continuous flooding. The nutrients released from S/CRF was controlled by water penetration into the S/CRF through the coating [89]. Continuous flooding wakened the suppression of coating on the release of N from S/CRF, and then wakened the efficacy of S/CRF on CH4 emission and rice yield. Thus, intermittent flooding and un-flooding were recommended for S/CRF to mitigate CH4 emission and to enhance rice yield.

4. Study Limitations

In this meta-analysis, the impact of N form on the effectiveness of EENF on CH4 emission was not considered, because nearly all of the N fertilizers used in the selected studies were urea. There was only one comparison of potassium nitrate and ammonium sulfate in selected studies, respectively. The efficacy of EENF on CH4 emission may affected by N form. Previous study reported that integrated application of DCD with urea was more effective on the mitigation of CH4 emission than with potassium nitrate or ammonium sulfate [54]. Beside inorganic N fertilizer, organic fertilizers (e.g., crop residue and manure) are also widely used in paddy fields to provide organic N for the paddy soils. It is well known that organic fertilizer greatly stimulate the CH4 emission from rice fields due to the abundant C supply [65,81,90]. Therefore, the effectiveness of inhibitors, such as DCD, DMPP, and HQ, on CH4 emission may be weakened when they applied with organic fertilizer because of the abundant C in organic fertilizer. Ref. [91] reported that HQ + DCD mitigated more CH4 emission in crop straw removed fields than crop straw applied fields. Thus, more work needs to be done to investigate the effect of N form on the efficacy of EENF on CH4 emission.
EENF can directly or indirectly affected the processes of CH4 production and oxidation in many pathways. The mechanism that EENF regulating CH4 emission is complex. Most previous studies only evaluated the effect of EENF on CH4 emission, but did not provide sufficient evidence (e.g., the change of C, N, and the activity of methanogens and methanotrophs in the soils) to elucidate the mechanism that how EENF influencing CH4 emission from paddy fields [17,56,58,62]. In this study, we deduced the pathway that how product type, rice variety, and three agronomic measures influencing the CH4 emission from rice fields based on limited evidence. Future field studies are needed to pay more attention to investigate the underlying mechanism how EENF affecting the CH4 emission at biochemical and ecosystem levels.

5. Conclusions

Overall, EENF significantly mitigated CH4 emission and increased the rice yields compared with conventional N fertilizer. Whereas, its performance was highly depended on product type, rice variety, and agronomic measures. Nitrapyrin and DMPP were more effective than DCD and Neem on the mitigation of CH4 emission. IS and S/CRF were more effectively for hybrid rice varieties than inbred rice varieties in mitigating CH4 emission and improving rice yield. The performance of IS on CH4 emission and rice yield were more stable than S/CRF under different agronomic options. IS significantly mitigate the CH4 emission under most agronomic options except when N application rate was less than 100 kg ha−1 and under continuous flooding, and significantly increased rice yield under all agronomic options. S/CRF did not significantly affect CH4 emission and rice yield in rice season of SRS, under continuous flooding, and when N application rate was less than 100 kg ha−1 or above 200 kg ha−1. These results could provide a good reference for the application of EENF in rice fields to mitigate CH4 emission without yield reduction.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy12102240/s1. Figure S1: Response of CH4 effect to yield effect under the addition of IS (a) and S/CRF (b); Figure S2: Response of CH4, Yield and Yield-scaled CH4 to the N application rates by the IS ((a), (b), (c)) and S/CRF((d), (e), (f)); Table S1: Categorization of enhanced efficiency nitrogen fertilizer (EENF) used in this meta-analysis.

Author Contributions

Data curation, T.Y., M.W. and X.W.; Methodology, T.Y. and M.W.; Writing—original draft preparation, T.Y., M.W., X.W., C.X., F.F., F.L.; writing—review and editing, T.Y., M.W., X.W., C.X., F.F. and F.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of China (41877548), Key Research Program of Zhejiang Province of China (2022C02008), and Central Public-interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund (CPSIBRF-CNRRI-202130).

Data Availability Statement

All data included in this study are available in present research or by contacting the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to all the members of the Rice Economy Group of China National Rice Research Institute.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAOSTAT. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed on 28 October 2021).
  2. Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision; ESA Working Paper 12-03; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  3. Zhang, X.; Davidson, E.A.; Mauzerall, D.L.; Searchinger, T.D.; Dumas, P.; Shen, Y. Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature 2015, 528, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ladha, J.K.; Tirol-Padre, A.; Reddy, C.K.; Cassman, K.G.; Verma, S.; Powlson, D.S.; van Kessel, C.; de B. Richter, D.; Chakraborty, D.; Pathak, H. Global nitrogen budgets in cereals: A 50-year assessment for maize, rice and wheat production systems. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 19355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Cai, Z.; Shan, Y.; Xu, H. Effects of nitrogen fertilization on CH4 emissions from rice fields. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2007, 53, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Le Mer, J.; Roger, P. Production, oxidation, emission and consumption of methane by soils: A review. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2001, 37, 25–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dannenberg, S.; Conrad, R. Effect of rice plants on methane production and rhizospheric metabolism in paddy soil. Biogeochemistry 1999, 45, 53–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bodelier, P.L.E.; Roslev, P.; Henckel, T.; Frenzel, P. Stimulation by ammonium-based fertilizers of methane oxidation in soil around rice roots. Nature 2000, 403, 421–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Banger, K.; Tian, H.; Lu, C. Do nitrogen fertilizers stimulate or inhibit methane emissions from rice fields? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2012, 18, 3259–3267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Halvorson, A.D.; Snyder, C.S.; Blaylock, A.D.; Del Grosso, S.J. Enhanced-Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizers: Potential Role in Nitrous Oxide Emission Mitigation. Agron. J. 2014, 106, 715–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dell, C.J.; Han, K.; Bryant, R.B.; Schmidt, J.P. Nitrous Oxide Emissions with Enhanced Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizers in a Rainfed System. Agron. J. 2014, 106, 723–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dimkpa, C.O.; Fugice, J.; Singh, U.; Lewis, T.D. Development of fertilizers for enhanced nitrogen use efficiency—Trends and perspectives. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 731, 139113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Akiyama, H.; Yan, X.; Yagi, K. Evaluation of effectiveness of enhanced-efficiency fertilizers as mitigation options for N2O and NO emissions from agricultural soils: Meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2010, 16, 1837–1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Qiao, C.; Liu, L.; Hu, S.; Compoton, J.E.; Greaver, T.L.; Li, Q. How inhibiting nitrification affects nitrogen cycle and reduces environmental impacts of anthropogenic nitrogen input. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 1249–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Feng, J.; Li, F.; Deng, A.; Feng, X.; Fang, F.; Zhang, W. Integrated assessment of the impact of enhanced-efficiency nitrogen fertilizer on N2O emission and crop yield. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 231, 218–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Abalos, D.; Jeffery, S.; Sanz-Cobena, A.; Guardia, G.; Vallejo, A. Meta-analysis of the effect of urease and nitrification inhibitors on crop productivity and nitrogen use efficiency. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 189, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, B.; Li, Y.; Wan, Y.; Qin, X.; Gao, Q.; Liu, S.; Li, J. Modifying nitrogen fertilizer practices can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from a Chinese double rice cropping system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 215, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Datta, A.; Adhya, T. Effects of organic nitrification inhibitors on methane and nitrous oxide emission from tropical rice paddy. Atmos. Environ. 2014, 92, 533–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sun, H.; Zhou, S.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, X.; Wang, C. Effects of controlled-release fertilizer on rice grain yield, nitrogen use efficiency, and greenhouse gas emissions in a paddy field with straw incorporation. Field Crops Res. 2020, 253, 107814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wu, K.K.; Zhang, L.L.; Song, Y.C.; Li, Y.H.; Gong, P.; Wu, Z.J.; Yang, L.J.; Li, D.P. Effects of stabilized N fertilizer combined with straw returning on rice yield and emission of N2O and CH4 in a paddy field. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 30, 1287–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, G.; Yu, H.; Zhang, G.; Xu, H.; Ma, J. Combination of wet irrigation and nitrification inhibitor reduced nitrous oxide and methane emissions from a rice cropping system. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 17426–17436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tian, W.; Wu, Y.-Z.; Tang, S.-R.; Hu, Y.-L.; Lai, Q.-Q.; Wen, D.-N.; Meng, L.; Wu, C.-D. Effects of Different Fertilization Modes on Greenhouse Gas Emission Characteristics of Paddy Fields in Hot Areas. Chin. J. Environ. Sci. 2019, 40, 2426–2434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhou, X.; Wu, L.H.; Dai, F.; Dong, C.H. Effects of combined biochemical inhibitors and fertilization models on CH4 and N2O emission from yellow clayey field during rice growth season. J. Ecol. Rural Environ. 2018, 34, 1122–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, Z.; Chen, J.; Liu, T.; Cao, C.; Li, C. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer sources and tillage practices on greenhouse gas emissions in paddy fields of central China. Atmos. Environ. 2016, 144, 274–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yu, H.Y.; Yang, Y.T.; Ma, J.; Xu, H.; Lv, S.H.; Yuan, J.; Dong, Y.J. Effect of nitrification inhibitor application on CH4 and N2O emissions from plastic mulching rice fields. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2017, 26, 461–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mohanty, S.; Swain, C.; Sethi, S.; Dalai, P.; Bhattachrayya, P.; Kumar, A.; Tripathi, R.; Shahid, M.; Panda, B.; Kumar, U.; et al. Crop establishment and nitrogen management affect greenhouse gas emission and biological activity in tropical rice production. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 104, 80–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, J.L.; Li, Y.E.; Zhou, S.H.; Su, R.R.; Wan, Y.F.; Wang, B.; Cai, W.W.; Guo, C.; Qin, X.B.; Gao, Q.Z.; et al. Synergistic effects of water-saving irrigation, polymer-coated nitrogen fertilizer and urease/nitrification inhibitor on mitigation of greenhouse gas emission from the double rice cropping system. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2016, 49, 3958–3967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Van Trinh, M.; Tesfai, M.; Borrell, A.; Nagothu, U.S.; Bui, T.P.L.; Quynh, V.D.; Thanh, L.Q. Effect of organic, inorganic and slow-release urea fertilisers on CH4 and N2O emissions from rice paddy fields. Paddy Water Environ. 2017, 15, 317–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Guo, C.; Xu, Z.W.; Wang, B.; Ren, T.; Wan, Y.F.; Zou, J.L.; Lu, J.W.; Li, X.K. Effects of slow/controlled release urea on annual CH4 and N2O emissions in paddy field. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 27, 1489–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yin, S.; Zhang, X.; Jiang, Z.; Zhu, P.; Li, C.; Liu, C. Inhibitory Effects of 3,4-Dimethylpyrazole Phosphate on CH4 and N2O Emissions in Paddy Fields of Subtropical China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, B.; Li, Y.E.; Wan, Y.F.; Qin, X.B.; Gao, Q.Z. Effect and assessment of controlled release fertilizer and additive treatments on greenhouse gases emission from a double rice field. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2014, 47, 314–323. [Google Scholar]
  32. Li, J.; Li, Y.; Wan, Y.; Wang, B.; Waqas, M.A.; Cai, W.; Guo, C.; Zhou, S.; Su, R.; Qin, X.; et al. Combination of modified nitrogen fertilizers and water saving irrigation can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase rice yield. Geoderma 2018, 315, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. He, F.; Ma, Y.H.; Yang, S.Y.; Jiang, B.; Zuo, H.F.; Yan, X.Y.; Ma, J. Effects of different fertilization techniques on the emission of methane and nitrous oxide from single cropping rice. J. Agro-Envrion. Sci. 2013, 32, 2093–2098. [Google Scholar]
  34. Zhang, G.; Ma, J.; Yang, Y.; Yu, H.; Song, K.; Dong, Y.; Lv, S.; Xu, H. Achieving low methane and nitrous oxide emissions with high economic incomes in a rice-based cropping system. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 259, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yi, Q.; Tang, S.H.; Pang, Y.W.; Huang, X.; Huang, Q.Y.; Li, P.; Fu, H.T.; Yang, S.H. Emissions of CH4 and N2O from paddy soil in south China under different fertilization patterns. J. Agro-Envrion. Sci. 2014, 33, 2478–2484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Guo, C.; Ren, T.; Li, P.; Wang, B.; Zou, J.; Hussain, S.; Cong, R.; Wu, L.; Lu, J.; Li, X. Producing more grain yield of rice with less ammonia volatilization and greenhouse gases emission using slow/controlled-release urea. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 26, 2569–2579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Yin, H.X. Effects of Fertilization on Emission of Methane and Nitrous Oxide from Rice—Wheat Rotation Field in Chao Lake Basin. Master’s thesis, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  38. Jumadi, O.; Hartono, H.; Masniawati, A.; Iriany, R.N.; Makkulawu, A.T.; Inubushi, K. Emissions of nitrous oxide and methane from rice field after granulated urea application with nitrification inhibitors and zeolite under different water managements. Paddy Water Environ. 2019, 17, 715–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liu, S.W. Shifts in Agricultural Production Regime Effect on Greenhouse Gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O) Emission from Rice-Based Cropping Systems in Southeast China. Ph.D. Thesis, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  40. Jing, R.Y. Effect of Modified Urea on Emission of Greenhouse Gases from Farmland. Master’s thesis, Southwest Agricultural University, Chongqing, China, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  41. Yue, J.; Shi, Y.; Liang, W.; Wu, J.; Wang, C.; Huang, G. Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Rice Field and Related Microorganism in Black Soil, Northeastern China. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2005, 73, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wu, R. Effects of Easy and Simple Fertilization Modes on Yield Formation Greenhouse Gas Emission of Ratoon Rice LY 6326. Master’s thesis, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yao, Y.; Zeng, K.; Song, Y. Biological nitrification inhibitor for reducing N2O and NH3 emissions simultaneously under root zone fertilization in a Chinese rice field. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 264, 114821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zuo, H.F. Effects of Different Fertilization Techniques on the Emission of Methane and Nitrous Oxide from the Rice—Wheat Rotation Cropland of Chao Lake Basin. Master’s thesis, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hu, Y.-L.; Tang, S.-R.; Tao, K.; He, Q.-X.; Tian, W.; Qing, X.-H.; Wu, Y.-Z.; Meng, L. Effects of Optimizing Fertilization on N2O and CH4 Emissions in a Paddy-Cowpea Rotation System in the Tropical Region of China. Chin. J. Environ. Sci. 2019, 40, 5182–5190. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ji, Y.; Liu, G.; Ma, J.; Zhang, G.-B.; Xu, H. Effects of Urea and Controlled Release Urea Fertilizers on Methane Emission from Paddy Fields: A Multi-Year Field Study. Pedosphere 2014, 24, 662–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yu, K.; Fang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Miao, Y.; Liu, S.; Zou, J. Low greenhouse gases emissions associated with high nitrogen use efficiency under optimized fertilization regimes in double-rice cropping systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 160, 103846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Guo, T.F. Effect of Fertilization Management on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Soil Microbial Properties in Rice—Wheat Rotation System. Master’s thesis, China Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  49. Rath, A.K.; Swain, B.; Ramakrishnan, B.; Panda, D.; Adhya, T.; Rao, V.; Sethunathan, N. Influence of fertilizer management and water regime on methane emission from rice fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 76, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liu, F.; Li, T.A.; Fan, X.L. Effects of controlled release fertilizer and straw mulching upland rice on CH4 and N2O emissions from late rice field. J. Northwest A&F Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2015, 43, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. He, T.; Yuan, J.; Luo, J.; Lindsey, S.; Xiang, J.; Lin, Y.; Liu, D.; Chen, Z.; Ding, W. Combined application of biochar with urease and nitrification inhibitors have synergistic effects on mitigating CH4 emissions in rice field: A three-year study. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 743, 140500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Adhya, T.; Bharati, K.; Mohanty, S.; Ramakrishnan, B.; Rao, V.; Sethunathan, N.; Wassmann, R. Methane Emission from Rice Fields at Cuttack, India. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 2000, 58, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lan, T.; Li, M.; Han, Y.; Deng, O.; Tang, X.; Luo, L.; Zeng, J.; Chen, G.; Yuan, S.; Wang, C.; et al. How are annual CH4, N2O, and NO emissions from rice–wheat system affected by nitrogen fertilizer rate and type? Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 150, 103469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ghosh, S.; Majumdar, D.; Jain, M. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from an irrigated rice of North India. Chemosphere 2003, 51, 181–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lan, T.; Zhang, H.; Han, Y.; Deng, O.; Tang, X.; Luo, L.; Zeng, J.; Chen, G.; Wang, C.; Gao, X. Regulating CH4, N2O, and NO emissions from an alkaline paddy field under rice–wheat rotation with controlled release N fertilizer. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 18246–18259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pathak, H.; Prasad, S.; Bhatia, A.; Singh, S.; Kumar, S.; Singh, J.; Jain, M. Methane emission from rice–wheat cropping system in the Indo-Gangetic plain in relation to irrigation, farmyard manure and dicyandiamide application. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 97, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Abao, E.B.; Bronson, K.; Wassmann, R.; Singh, U. Simultaneous Records of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions in Rice-Based Cropping Systems under Rainfed Conditions. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2000, 58, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Malla, G.; Bhatia, A.; Pathak, H.; Prasad, S.; Jain, N.; Singh, J. Mitigating nitrous oxide and methane emissions from soil in rice–wheat system of the Indo-Gangetic plain with nitrification and urease inhibitors. Chemosphere 2005, 58, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yi, Q.; Pang, Y.W.; Yang, S.H.; Lu, Y.S.; Fu, H.T.; Li, P.; Jiang, R.P.; Tang, S.H. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions in paddy field as influenced by fertilization. Eco. Environ. Sci. 2013, 22, 1432–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, X.; Zhang, X.; Xu, H.; Cai, Z.; Yagi, K. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from rice paddy soil as influenced by timing of application of hydroquinone and dicyandiamide. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2009, 85, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Xu, C.; Xie, H.K.; Ding, W.H.; Dai, Z.; Zhang, J.; Wang, L.G.; Li, H. The impacts of CH4 and N2O net emission under one-off fertilization of rape- paddy replanting system. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2018, 51, 3972–3984. [Google Scholar]
  62. Gupta, D.K.; Bhatia, A.; Kumar, A.; Das, T.; Jain, N.; Tomer, R.; Malyan, S.K.; Fagodiya, R.; Dubey, R.; Pathak, H. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emission from rice–wheat system of the Indo-Gangetic plains: Through tillage, irrigation and fertilizer management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 230, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hedges, L.V.; Gurevitch, J.; Curtis, P.S. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 1999, 80, 1150–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rosenberg, M.S.; Adams, D.C.; Gurevitch, J. Metawin: Statistical Software for Meta-Analysis, version 2.1; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  65. Linquist, B.A.; Adviento-Borbe, M.A.; Pittelkow, C.M.; van Kessel, C.; van Groenigen, K.J. Fertilizer management practices and greenhouse gas emissions from rice systems: A quantitative review and analysis. Field Crop. Res. 2012, 135, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Linquist, B.A.; Liu, L.; van Kessel, C.; van Groenigen, K.J. Enhanced efficiency nitrogen fertilizers for rice systems: Meta-analysis of yield and nitrogen uptake. Field Crop. Res. 2013, 154, 246–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Xia, L.; Lam, S.K.; Chen, D.; Wang, J.; Tang, Q.; Yan, X. Can knowledge-based N management produce more staple grain with lower greenhouse gas emission and reactive nitrogen pollution? A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 1917–1925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Marsden, K.A.; Marín-Martínez, A.J.; Vallejo, A.; Hill, P.W.; Jones, D.L.; Chadwick, D.R. The mobility of nitrification inhibitors under simulated ruminant urine deposition and rainfall: A comparison between DCD and DMPP. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2016, 52, 491–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tindaon, F.; Benckiser, G.; Ottow, J.C.G. Evaluation of ecological doses of the nitrification inhibitors 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) and 4-chloromethylpyrazole (ClMP) in comparison to dicyandiamide (DCD) in their effects on dehydrogenase and dimethyl sulfoxide reductase activity in soils. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2012, 48, 643–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Qi, X.; Wu, W.; Peng, S.; Shah, F.; Huang, J.; Cui, K.; Liu, H.; Nie, L. Improvement of early seedling growth of dry direct-seeded rice by urease inhibitors application. Aust. J. Crop. Sci. 2012, 6, 525–531. [Google Scholar]
  71. Aly, S.; Soliman, S.; Ismail, M.; Awad, E.; El-Sherbieny, A. The efficiency of modified urea labelled with N-15 by rice plant. Egypt. J. Soil Sci. 2001, 41, 15–26. [Google Scholar]
  72. Zhang, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Li, Z.; Zhu, X.; Wang, X.; Chen, J.; Hang, X.; Deng, A.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, W. Aboveground morphological traits do not predict rice variety effects on CH4 emissions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 208, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. van der Gon, H.A.C.D.; Kropff, M.J.; van Breemen, N.; Wassmann, R.; Lantin, R.S.; Aduna, E.; Corton, T.M.; van Laar, H.H. Optimizing grain yields reduces CH4 emissions from rice paddy fields. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 12021–12024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Huang, L.; Sun, F.; Yuan, S.; Peng, S.; Wang, F. Different mechanisms underlying the yield advantage of ordinary hybrid and super hybrid rice over inbred rice under low and moderate N input conditions. Field Crop. Res. 2018, 216, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Yuan, L. Hybrid rice in China. In Hybrid Rice Technology; Ahmed, M.I., Viraktamath, B.C., Vijaya, C.H.M., Eds.; Di-rectorate of Rice Research: Hyderabad, India, 1996; pp. 51–54. [Google Scholar]
  76. Chen, D.-G.; Zhou, X.-Q.; Li, L.-J.; Liu, C.-G.; Zhang, X.; Chen, Y.-D. Relationship between Root Morphological Characteristics and Yield Components of Major Commercial Indica Rice in South China. Acta Agron. Sin. 2013, 39, 1899–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ma, K.; Qiu, Q.; Lu, Y. Microbial mechanism for rice variety control on methane emission from rice field soil. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2009, 16, 3085–3095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Xu, L.; Yuan, S.; Wang, X.; Yu, X.; Peng, S. High yields of hybrid rice do not require more nitrogen fertilizer than inbred rice: A meta-analysis. Food Energy Secur. 2021, 10, e276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Huang, M.; Lei, T.; Cao, F.; Chen, J.; Shan, S.; Zou, Y. Grain yield responses to nitrogen rate in two elite double-cropped inbred rice cultivars released 41 years apart. Field Crop. Res. 2020, 259, 107970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhou, C.; Huang, Y.; Jia, B.; Wang, S.; Dou, F.; Samonte, S.O.P.; Chen, K.; Wang, Y. Optimization of Nitrogen Rate and Planting Density for Improving the Grain Yield of Different Rice Genotypes in Northeast China. Agronomy 2019, 9, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Feng, J.; Chen, C.; Zhang, Y.; Song, Z.; Deng, A.; Zheng, C.; Zhang, W. Impacts of cropping practices on yield-scaled greenhouse gas emissions from rice fields in China: A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 164, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tan, W.; Yu, H.; Huang, C.; Li, D.; Zhang, H.; Jia, Y.; Wang, G.; Xi, B. Discrepant responses of methane emissions to additions with different organic compound classes of rice straw in paddy soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 630, 141–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Zhang, J.; Hang, X.; Lamine, S.M.; Jiang, Y.; Afreh, D.; Qian, H.; Feng, X.; Zheng, C.; Deng, A.; Song, Z.; et al. Interactive effects of straw incorporation and tillage on crop yield and greenhouse gas emissions in double rice cropping system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 250, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Mussoline, W.; Esposito, G.; Giordano, A.; Lens, P.N.L. The Anaerobic Digestion of Rice Straw: A Review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 43, 895–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Chaves, B.; Opoku, A.; De Neve, S.; Boeckx, P.; Van Cleemput, O.; Hofman, G. Influence of DCD and DMPP on soil N dynamics after incorporation of vegetable crop residues. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2006, 43, 62–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tao, R.; Li, J.; Guan, Y.; Liang, Y.; Hu, B.; Lv, J.; Chu, G. Effects of urease and nitrification inhibitors on the soil mineral nitrogen dynamics and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions on calcareous soil. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 9155–9164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Inselsbacher, E.; Umana, N.H.-N.; Stange, F.C.; Gorfer, M.; Schüller, E.; Ripka, K.; Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S.; Hood-Novotny, R.; Strauss, J.; Wanek, W. Short-term competition between crop plants and soil microbes for inorganic N fertilizer. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2010, 42, 360–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Aronson, E.L.; Helliker, B.R. Methane flux in non-wetland soils in response to nitrogen addition: A meta-analysis. Ecology 2010, 91, 3242–3251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Shaviv, A. Advances in controlled-release fertilizers. Adv. Agron. 2001, 71, 1–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Guo, J.; Song, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Wei, W.; Li, S.; Yu, Y. The characteristics of yield-scaled methane emission from paddy field in recent 35-year in China: A meta-analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 161, 1044–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Xu, X.; Boeckx, P.; Van Cleemput, O.; Zhou, L. Urease and nitrification inhibitors to reduce emissions of CH4 and N2O in rice production. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2002, 64, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 12 02240 g001 550
Figure 1. Overall effects of EENF on CH4, rice yield, and yield-scaled CH4 emission from rice fields. * the number of comparisons for rice yield and yield-scaled CH4, which is less than that for CH4, because 4 studies did not report rice yield. All error bars represented 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 1. Overall effects of EENF on CH4, rice yield, and yield-scaled CH4 emission from rice fields. * the number of comparisons for rice yield and yield-scaled CH4, which is less than that for CH4, because 4 studies did not report rice yield. All error bars represented 95% confidence intervals.
Agronomy 12 02240 g001
Agronomy 12 02240 g002 550
Figure 2. Effects of EENF products on CH4, rice yield, and yield-scaled CH4 emission from rice fields.
Figure 2. Effects of EENF products on CH4, rice yield, and yield-scaled CH4 emission from rice fields.
Agronomy 12 02240 g002
Agronomy 12 02240 g003 550
Figure 3. Impacts of rice variety on the efficacy of IS and S/CRF on CH4, rice yield, and yield-scaled CH4 emission from rice fields.
Figure 3. Impacts of rice variety on the efficacy of IS and S/CRF on CH4, rice yield, and yield-scaled CH4 emission from rice fields.
Agronomy 12 02240 g003
Agronomy 12 02240 g004 550
Figure 4. Impacts of cropping system on the efficacy of IS and S/CRF on CH4, rice yield, and yield-scaled CH4 emission from rice fields.
Figure 4. Impacts of cropping system on the efficacy of IS and S/CRF on CH4, rice yield, and yield-scaled CH4 emission from rice fields.
Agronomy 12 02240 g004
Agronomy 12 02240 g005 550
Figure 5. Impacts of N application rate on the efficacy of IS and S/CRF on CH4, rice yield, and yield-scaled CH4 emission from rice fields. * the number of comparisons for rice yield and yield-scaled CH4 was less than three.
Figure 5. Impacts of N application rate on the efficacy of IS and S/CRF on CH4, rice yield, and yield-scaled CH4 emission from rice fields. * the number of comparisons for rice yield and yield-scaled CH4 was less than three.
Agronomy 12 02240 g005
Agronomy 12 02240 g006 550
Figure 6. Impacts of water managements on the efficacy of IS and S/CRF on CH4, rice yield, and yield-scaled CH4 emission from rice fields.
Figure 6. Impacts of water managements on the efficacy of IS and S/CRF on CH4, rice yield, and yield-scaled CH4 emission from rice fields.
Agronomy 12 02240 g006
Table
Table 1. The studies used in the meta-analysis to evaluate the impacts of EENF on CH4 emission and rice yield.
Table 1. The studies used in the meta-analysis to evaluate the impacts of EENF on CH4 emission and rice yield.
IdCountryNumber of ComparisonsType of EENFReferenceIdCountryNumber of ComparisonsType of EENFReference
1China2UI + NI[20]24China4NI[21]
2China2UI + NI[22]25China12NI, S/CRF[17]
3China10UI, NI, UI + NI[23]26China2S/CRF[24]
4China2NI[25]27India8NI[26]
5China4UI + NI, S/CRF[27]28Vietnam4UI[28]
6China2NI, S/CRF[29]29China7NI[30]
7China8NI, UI + NI, S/CRF[31]30China4UI + NI, S/CRF[32]
8China2UI, S/CRF[33]31China8NI, UI + NI, S/CRF[34]
9China6UI, S/CRF[35]32China12NI, S/CRF[36]
10China2UI, S/CRF[37]33Indonesia6NI, S/CRF[38]
11China6UI + NI, S/CRF[39]34China4S/CRF[19]
12China3NI, UI + NI, S/CRF[40]35China1S/CRF[41]
13China14NI, S/CRF[42]36China3NI, UI + NI[43]
14China2UI, S/CRF[44]37China1UI + NI[45]
15China4S/CRF[46]38China2S/CRF[47]
16China1S/CRF[48]39India2NI, S/CRF[49]
17China1S/CRF[50]40China9UI, NI, UI + NI[51]
18India2NI[52]41China4S/CRF[53]
19India3NI[54]42China4S/CRF[55]
20India2NI[56]43Philippines1S/CRF[57]
21India4UI, NI[58]44China2S/CRF[59]
22China3UI + NI[60]45China1S/CRF[61]
23India6NI[18]46India2NI[62]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, T.; Wang, M.; Wang, X.; Xu, C.; Fang, F.; Li, F. Product Type, Rice Variety, and Agronomic Measures Determined the Efficacy of Enhanced-Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizer on the CH4 Emission and Rice Yields in Paddy Fields: A Meta-Analysis. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2240. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12102240

AMA Style

Yang T, Wang M, Wang X, Xu C, Fang F, Li F. Product Type, Rice Variety, and Agronomic Measures Determined the Efficacy of Enhanced-Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizer on the CH4 Emission and Rice Yields in Paddy Fields: A Meta-Analysis. Agronomy. 2022; 12(10):2240. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12102240

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Tong, Mengjie Wang, Xiaodan Wang, Chunchun Xu, Fuping Fang, and Fengbo Li. 2022. "Product Type, Rice Variety, and Agronomic Measures Determined the Efficacy of Enhanced-Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizer on the CH4 Emission and Rice Yields in Paddy Fields: A Meta-Analysis" Agronomy 12, no. 10: 2240. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12102240

APA Style

Yang, T., Wang, M., Wang, X., Xu, C., Fang, F., & Li, F. (2022). Product Type, Rice Variety, and Agronomic Measures Determined the Efficacy of Enhanced-Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizer on the CH4 Emission and Rice Yields in Paddy Fields: A Meta-Analysis. Agronomy, 12(10), 2240. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12102240

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop