1707 - climate smart agriculture: how modified crop/water management with sri can contribute to...
TRANSCRIPT
Climate-smart agriculture: How modified crop/water management with the System of Rice Intensification
(SRI) can contribute to climate-resilience and higher water productivity
Amod K. Thakur and Norman Uphoff
ICAR-Indian Institute of Water Management, Bhubaneswar-751 023, Odisha, India, and
SRI-Rice, Mann Library, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA
2017 Annual Meetings of ASA-CSSA-SSSA on ‘Managing Global Resources for a Secure Future,’ October 23-25, 2017, Tampa, FL
Although there has been controversy over some of the high yields reported with the System of Rice
Intensification (SRI), an agroecological crop/water management system developed in Madagascar, SRI has been gaining acceptance around the world.
Measurable improvements in plant phenotype and substantial increases in average yield have
been reported from >50 countries when SRI methods have been used, and not even necessarily used fully.
SRI is a matter of degree > kind SRI is ideas, rather than a set technology
SPREAD OF SRI METHODS : 1st validations outside of Madagascar were in China (1999 @ Nanjing Agric. University) and then in Indonesia (1999-2000 @ Sukamandi rice research station). SRI methods
have been validated to date in 58 countries (http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/countries/index.html)
Validation = better, more robust phenotypes from a given genotype (variety)
Most attention has focused on SRI yield effects, with little assessment of how SRI methods can help farmers
adapt to, as well as buffer, the adverse stresses of climate change and at same time reduce the
emissions of greenhouse gases from rice paddies.
Achieving these three impacts qualifies SRI as ‘climate-smart agriculture,’ according to
FAO: •Production increases
2. Adaptation to climatic stresses3. Mitigation of global warming
Data (2013) from China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam and Cambodia where SRI had government support:> 3,466,710 farmers were using SRI methods on > 9,527,366 ha
with average yield 6.22 t ha-1 vs. comparison yield of 4.56 t ha-1 = 40% increase with less water, seeds, other inputs – incl. less labor?
Average increase in SRI yield (1.66 t ha-1) x SRI area (3.467 m ha) means that SRI increased rice production by 5.75 million tons.
At a farmgate price of $150 ton-1, this means that farmer incomes were increased by $862 million.
Lower cost of production estimated @ $160 million* brings this to >$1 billion plus the value of water saved and lower GHG emissions.
At a farmgate price of $300 ton-1, value to farmers was >$2 billion. * Based on a 2013 study in India by TNAU/IWMI researchers of 2,234 farmers in 13 states
Data reported in “Developments in the system of rice intensification (SRI),” N. Uphoff, in Achieving Sustainable Cultivation of Rice, Burleigh-Dodds, Cambridge, UK (2016)
What does the System of Rice Intensif ication involve?
Certain changes in how plants, soil , water, nutrients are managed:
• Wider spacing : transplanting of single seedlings in square pattern, usually 25x25 cm reduction in plant population m -2 by 80-90%
• Young seedlings : transplant before 4 th phyllochron, when <15 days old; this promotes more vigorous t il lering and greater root growth
• Mostly aerobic soil conditions : stop continuous flooding; AWD avoids degeneration of roots and promotes more aerobic soil biota
• Active soil aeration, using mechanical push-weeder to control weeds
• Enhanced soil organic matter better soil structure and functioning for better root growth and more abundant, diverse, active soil biota
•SRI ideas have been adapted to establish rice crops through direct-seeding and for upland/unirrigated/rainfed cult ivation •SRI methods result in (a) larger, deeper root systems and (b) more abundance, biodiversity and activi ty of soil organisms
Phenotype comparisons from Indonesia and Liberia show differential expression of rice plants’
genetic potential with the same varieties (same genotypes)
These comparisons are extreme, but they show impact
management can have
EVIDENCE ON WATER SAVING AND PRODUCTIVITY
Results of a meta-analysis of 251 comparison trials across 8 countries reported in 29 published studies between 2006 and 2013
Average water use : Standard mgmt. = 15.33 mill ion l i ters ha -1
SRI management = 12.03 mill ion l i ters ha -1
With less water, SRI gave 11% more yield: 5.9 tons vs. 5.1
tons ha -1
Note: on-farm SRI yield increases are usually much more than this
SRI = 22% reduction in total water use ( irrig + rainfall) per
ha SRI = 35% average reduction in irrigat ion water use per ha
Total water use eff iciency 52% higher - - 0.6 vs. 0.39 g rice per l i ter
Irrigat ion WUE 78% greater - - 1.23 vs. 0.69 grams of rice per l i ter
“Evaluation of water use, water saving and water use eff iciency in irrigated rice production with SRI vs. tradit ional management,” P. Jagannath, H.
Pullabhotla and N. Uphoff, Taiwan Water Conservancy (2013)
PHENOTYPIC EVIDENCE ON WATER PRODUCTIVITY
Comparative analysis of same-variety phenotypes of rice, with all experimental conditions the same, except for management practices
Trials at ICAR-Indian Institute of Water Management, Bhubaneswar
SRI rice phenotypes showed higher water-use eff iciency within plants
as measured by the RATIO between photosynthesis and transpirat ion
For each 1 mill imol of water lost by transpirat ion,SRI plants f ixed 3.6 micromols of CO 2 - - while
conventionally-grown plants f ixed 1.6 micromoles
Such efficiency becomes more important with cl imate change,
and as water becomes a scarcer factor of production“An assessment of physiological effects of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) compared with recommended rice cultivation practices in India,” A.K. Thakur, N. Uphoff and E. Antony,
Experimental Agriculture, 46(1), 77-98 (2010)
Picture of a rice plant phenotype in Indonesia:223 t i l lers growing from a single seed with SRI
methods
Presented by SRI farmers in East Java, Indonesia, to Uphoff in 2009;in 2004, a Sri Lankan farmer showed him SRI panicle with 930 grains
Two rice plant phenotypes in Cuba - - of same age
(52 DAS) and same variety (VN 2084), same genetics
SRI plant on r ight was transplanted from the same nursery when 9 days old and put into an SRI growing environment
43 t i l lers vs. 5 t i l lersNote also the signif icant difference in the color of the
respective roots
Comparisons of r ice plant phenotypes of same variety in Iran and Iraq, showing effects of
SRI management
Pictures sent to Cornell by researchers at the national r ice research stat ions at Haraz and Al-Mishkhab, respectively,
showing how they found SRI methods inducing the growth of larger, healthier rice root systems
Test plots at Al-Mishkhab research station at Najaf, Iraq, where varietal responses to SRI management
were compared
SRI management methods induce the growth of larger root systemswhich also resist senescenceSRI practices (young seedlings, wider spacing, compost, etc.)
were used in the lef t -hand plots of these paired plots, each with the same rice variety, 2007
SRI effects on the soil biota are not as easy to see, but they are equally crucial
for SRI resultsResults from research at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
ICRISAT, and Bogor Agricultural University (IPB)
“A review of studies on SRI effects on beneficial soil organisms in r ice soil rhizospheres,” I. Anas, O.P. Rupela, T.M. Thiyagarajan and N. Uphoff , Paddy
and Water Environment , 9: 53-64 (2011)
Beneficial effects of endophytic bacteria associated with SRI practices seen in replicated trials at Anjomakely, Madagascar, 2001 (Andriankaja thesis, 2002)
CLAY SOIL
Azospirillum in rice plant roots (103 CFU/mg)
Tillers/plant Yield (t/ha)
Farmer methods with no soil amendments 65 17 1.8 SRI methods with no soil amendments 1,100 45 6.1 SRI methods with NPK amendments 450 68 9.0 SRI cultivation with compost 1,400 78 10.5 LOAM SOIL SRI methods with no soil amendments 75 32 2.1 SRI methods with compost 2,000 47 6.6
Effects on root architecture of inoculating two rice varieties with Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii E11 : (a) Rootlets per plant (no.);
(b) Cumulative root length (mm); (c) Surface area (cm2); (d) Root biovolume (cm3)
Y. G. Yanni et al., Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 28: 845–870 (2001)
Evidence of positive interactions between soil microbes and growth of rice plant roots
Dark bars = inoculated roots; light bars = uninoculated
SRI
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
IH H FH MR WR YRStage
Org
an d
ry w
eigh
t(g/
hill)
I H H FH MR WR YR
CK Yellow leafand sheath
Panicle
Leaf
Sheath
Stem
47.9% 34.7%
Average weight of rice plant organs at initial heading (IR), heading (H), full heading (FH), milky rice (MR), waxy rice (WR), yellow rice (YR) stages
Phenotypical comparisons made by Dr. Tao Longxing at the China National Rice Research Inst i tute in Hangzhou in 2002
(CK = control)
EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE RESILIENCE which makes SRI ‘cl imate-smart agriculture’
* Drought resil ience
* Resistance to lodging caused by wind and rain
* Resistance to pests and diseases
* Cold temperature tolerance
A.K. Thakur and N. Uphoff, “How the System of Rice Intensif ication can contribute to climate-smart agriculture,” Agronomy Journal, 109: 1163-
1183 (2017).
Visual evidence of drought resi l ience in Sri Lanka: rice f ields planted with same variety and served by the same irrigation system, which had dried up 3 weeks earl ier –
SRI f ield is on the right
ON-FARM EVIDENCE OF DROUGHT RESILIENCE
Team from the Internat ional Water Management Inst i tute (IWMI) did evaluation in two districts of Sri Lanka comparing the rice
crops of 60 farmers who used SRI methods and 60 matched farmers using conventional methods. The paddy crop in that 2003/04 maha
(main) season had been subjected to 75 days of severe drought.
• On SRI-grown plants, 80% of the t i l lers formed panicles , while only 70% of t i l lers on rice plants grown under usual management did
this. • In this drought-stressed season, even though farmer-practice fields
had 10 t imes more rice plants per sq. meter , the number of panicle-bearing t i l lers per m -1 was 30% higher in the
SRI fields. • Also, the number of grains panicle -1 on SRI plants was 115 vs. 87.
• Harvested yield was 33% higher: 6.37 tons ha-1 vs. 4.78 tons ha-1.• Under drought conditions, SRI-managed phenotypes demonstrated
greater translocation of photosynthates into the grains. “The practice and effects of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Sri Lanka,” Namara, Bossio, Weligamage and Herath, Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture (2008)
Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
SRI area (ha) 1,133 7,267 57,400 117,267 204,467 252,467 301,067 941,068
SRI yield (kg/ha) 9,105 9,435 8,805 9,075 9,300 9,495 9,555 9,252
Non-SRI yield (kg/ha) 7,740 7,650 7,005 7,395 7,575 7,710 7,740 7,545
SRI increment (t/ha)* 1,365 1,785 1,800# 1,680 1,725 1,785 1,815# 1,708
SRI yield increase* 17.6% 23.3% 25.7% 22.7% 22.8% 23.2% 23.5% 22.7%
Grain increase (tons）
1,547 12,971 103,320 197,008 352,705 450,653 546,436 1,664,640
Added net income due to SRI (million RMB)*
1.28 11.64 106.51 205.10 450.85 571.69 704.272,051
(>$300 m)
* These comparisons for SRI paddy yield and profitability are made with the provincial average for Sichuan # In drought years (2006 and 2010), SRI yields were 12% higher than with conventional methods in more normal years (2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009) Source: Data from the Sichuan Provincial Department of Agriculture
PROVINCE-WIDE EVIDENCE OF SRI DROUGHT-RESISTANCE
from Sichuan, China - - where 2006 and 2010 were drought years
ON-STATION EVIDENCE OF WEATHER RESILIENCE
Two seasons of trials evaluating System of Wheat Intensif icat ion (SWI) at the Indian Agricultural Research Inst i tute (IARI),
Pusa, New Delhi,in the rabi seasons 2011/12 and 2012/13, comparing SWI methods
used in Bihar state vs. IARI’s s tandard recommended practices (SRP)
In a normal season, SWI had 30% yield advantage over
SRP .In a cl imate-stressed season (high temperatures, then
excess rain), SWI’s yield advantage over SRP was 46%.
Yield reduction in climate-stressed season was 12.5% with SWI, while SRP reductions ranged from 18% to 31%.
Economic net returns with SWI were 35% higher than with SRP.
“Comparing System of Wheat Intensification (SWI) with standard recommended practices in the northwest plain zone of India,” S. Dhar, B.C. Barah, A.K. Vyas and N. Uphoff,
Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science (2015)
Visual evidence of storm resistance in Vietnam:
Adjacent paddy f ields after being hit by a tropical s torm
in Dông Trù vil lage,Hanoi province, 2005
SRI field and plant on left ; conventionally-managed f ield and plant on right
The same rice variety was grown in both fields.
Serious lodging on right,but not on the left .
More visual evidence of storm resistance in Vietnam : Adjacent
paddy f ields in Trà Vinh province in the Mekong Delta, after a
tropical s torm had passed over them; SRI plot is on the right. (Picture from a publicat ion by GIZ and IFAD, 2013)
Phenotypical explanation for resistance to lodging
Lodging-related traits of the third internode from the top of rice plants as affected by N rates (kg ha-1) and management practices during 2008 late season and 2009 double season, Hubei province, China
N fert i l izer applicat ion
Manage-ment
practice #
Breaking resistanc
e(g cm)
Bending moment(g cm)
Internode length
(cm)
Dry weight/ length
(mg cm -1)
Diamete
r(mm)
0 applicat ion*
SRI 449 a 953 a 7.4 a 40.4 a 4.90 a
MRMP 385b 809a 7.5a 39.0a 4.80a
RMP 350bc 609b 8.6a 28.2b 4.27b
180-195 kg/ha**
SRI 515 a 1287 a 8.7 a 56.9 a 5.77 a
MRMP 498ab 1171a 9.2ab 46.8ab 5.45ab
RMP 330bc 1070b 10.8b 37.8b 5.10b
# SRI: System of Rice Intensification; RMP: Recommended management practices; MRMP: Modified RMP: same seedling age, water mgmt, nutrient mgmt. and weeding as for SRI; but plant density = 2x SRI (½ of RMP) *Average for 2 seasons: 2009 early and 2009 late **Average for 3 seasons: 2008 late, 2009 early and 2009 late
Data from “Evaluation of System of Rice Intensif icat ion methods applied in the double rice-cropping systems in Central China,” Wu, Huang, Shah and Uphoff ,
Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 132 (2015)
Field evidence of disease and pest resistancefrom Vietnam: evaluation by its National IPM Program with
data averaged from on-farm trials in 8 provinces, 2005-06Spring season Summer season
SRIplots
Farmerplots
Differ-ence
SRIplots
FarmerPlots
Differ-ence
Sheath blight
6.7% 18.1% 63.0% 5.2% 19.8% 73.7%
Leaf bl ight - - - - - - 8.6% 36.3% 76.5%
Small leaf folder*
63.4 107.7 41.1% 61.8 122.3 49.5%
Brown plant hopper*
542 1,440 62.4% 545 3,214 83.0%
Average 55.5% 70.7%
* Insects m-2
Visual evidence of resistance to both biotic and abiotic stresses in E. Java, Indonesia: both f ields were hit by brown
planthopper (BPH) and then by a tropical storm -- standard practices on left , organic SRI on right
Modern improved variety
(Ciherang) – no yield
Traditional aromatic variety
(Sintanur)- 8 t/ha
Data on resistance to cold temperatures in India: Yield and meteorological data from an IPM experiment
affected by sudden unexpected cold spell (ANGRAU, Andhra Pradesh)
Period Period Mean max. Mean max. temp. temp. 00CC
Mean min. Mean min. temp. temp. 00 C C
No. of No. of sunshine sunshine
hourshours
1 – 151 – 15 NovNov 27.727.7 19.219.2 4.94.9
16–3016–30 Nov Nov 29.629.6 17.917.9 7.57.5
1 – 15 Dec1 – 15 Dec 29.129.1 14.614.6 8.68.6
16–31 Dec 16–31 Dec 28.128.1 12.2 12.2 ## 8.68.6# Sudden drop in minimum temp. for 5 days, 16-21 December
(9.2-9.9 o C )
SeasonSeason Normal (t/ha)Normal (t/ha) SRI (t/ha)SRI (t/ha)
Rabi (winter) 2005-06Rabi (winter) 2005-06 2.25 2.25 3.473.47
Kharif (monsoon) 2006Kharif (monsoon) 2006 0.21*0.21* 4.164.16
* Low yield was due to cold injury (see below)
Data on reductions in GHG emissions
• Flooded rice paddies are a major source of methane (CH4); with SRI, when flooding is stopped, methane emissions are reduced without offsetting increase in nitrous oxide (N2O)
• An evaluation for GIZ in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam found a significant reduction in CH4 of 20%, with NS 1.4% reduction in N2O (significant that there was no increase) (Dill et al., 2013)
• A life-cycle analysis (LCA) in Andhra Pradesh, India found SRI management compared to standard practices reduced global warming potential (GWP) emissions by >25% per ha, and by >60% per kg of rice produced (Gathorne-Hardy et al., 2013)
• Another study by IARI researchers in India found that SRI methods lowered GWP per hectare by 28% (Jain et al., 2013)
• Carbon dioxide (CO2) is reduced with less use of inorganic fertilizers and agrochemicals, less production and transport
Comparison of methane gas emissionComparison of methane gas emission
CT SRI
kg C
H4
/ ha
0
200
400
600
800
1000
840.1
237.6
72 %
Treatment
Emission (kg/ha)CO2 ton/ha
equivalentCH4 N2O
CT 840.1 0 17.6
SRI 237.6 0.074 5.0
SRI ideas and practices have been adapted and extended to the broader System of Crop
Intensif ication (SCI) with many reports of increased cl imate resi l ience
• Wheat (SWI) -- India, Nepal, Ethiopia, Mali
• Sugarcane (SSI) - - India, Cuba, Kenya, Tanzania
• Finger millet (SFMI) - - India, Ethiopia, Nepal, Malawi
• Sorghum and tef – Ethiopia
• Maize -- India
Also reports on SCI benefits for mustard, soya bean, black gram, green gram, red gram, tomatoes, chil l ies, eggplant, sesame, green leafy vegetables, turmeric, cumin, coriander, etc. - - India, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone
SWI wheat crop in Bihar state of India, Chandrapura vi l lage, Khagarla district – these f ields are the same age
and same variety
System of Tef Intensification in Ethiopia – yields of 3-6 t/ha with TP STI vs. 1 t/ha with broadcasting --
direct-seeded STI used by >2 million farmers in 2014/15 -- 70% more yield
