Background
Rice is a major contributor to anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, primarily methane, and at the same time will be negatively impacted by regional climate changes. Identifying rice management interventions to reduce methane emissions while improving productivity is, therefore, critical for climate change mitigation, adaptation, and food security. However, it can be challenging to conduct multivariate assessments of rice interventions in the field owing to the intensiveness of data collection and/or the challenges in testing long-term changes in meteorological and climate conditions. Process-based modeling, evaluated against site-based data, provides an entry point for evaluating the impacts of climate change on rice systems and assessing the impacts, co-benefits, and trade-offs of interventions under historical and future climate conditions.
Methods
We leverage existing site-based management data to model combined rice yields, methane emissions, and water productivity using a suite of process-based coupled crop-soil model experiments for 83 growing sites across the Red River Delta, Vietnam. We test three rice management interventions with our coupled crop-soil model, characterized by Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD) water management and other principles representing the System of Rice Intensification (SRI). Our simulations are forced with historical as well as future climate conditions, represented by five Earth System Models for a high-emission climate scenario centered on the year 2050. We evaluate the efficacy of these interventions for combined climate change mitigation and adaptation under historical and future climate change.
Results
Two SRI interventions significantly increased yields (one by over 50%) under historical climate conditions while also reducing (or not increasing) methane emissions. These interventions also increase yields under future climate conditions relative to baseline management practices, although climate change decreases absolute yields across all management practices. Generally, where yield improved, so did crop water-use efficiency. However, impacts on methane emissions were mixed across the sites under future climate conditions. Two of the interventions resulted in increased methane emissions, depending on the baseline management point of comparison. Nevertheless, one intervention reduced (or did not significantly increase) methane under both historical and future climate conditions and relative to all baseline management systems, although there was considerable variation across five selected climate models.
Conclusions
SRI management principles combined with high-yielding varieties, implemented for site-specific conditions, can serve climate change adaptation and mitigation goals, although the magnitude of future climate changes, particularly warming, may reduce the efficacy of these interventions with respect to methane reductions. Future work should better bracket important sensitivities of coupled crop-soil models and disentangle which management and climate factors drive the responses shown. Furthermore, future analyses that integrate these findings into socio-economic assessment can better inform if and how SRI/AWD can potentially benefit farmer livelihoods now and in the future, which will be critical to the adoption and scaling of these management principles.
