Field management practices are an important factor in mitigating climate change and increasing agricultural production. However, no study has synthesized the evidence on the efficacy of alternative field management practices and reviewed life cycle assessments that consider all emissions over the entire or part of the life cycle of rice production. Thus, 68 papers were reviewed and grouped into 13 field management categories. The management practices were evaluated in terms of yield, area-scaled greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and yield-scaled GHG emissions against base management practices. The yield increase of these field management practices was between -6 % and 12 %, with some exceptions. It was only nonpuddling that simultaneously increased the yield and reduced both the area-scaled GHG and yield-scaled GHG emissions with respect to the base category. Water management, including alternate wetting and drying or single and multiple drainage and no-tillage, performed well in reducing the average area-scaled GHG and yield-scaled GHG emissions, although the average yield was reduced slightly. For the remaining many management practices, the increase in area-scaled GHG emissions was larger than the change in yield, so the yield change had little impact on yield-scaled GHG emissions. The higher increase in area-scaled GHG emissions than the change in yield requires innovative and new approaches, such as implementing alternative management together with water management, of which the effect was observed in some of the papers reviewed in this study. Therefore, this study recommends selecting nonpuddling, water management or no-tillage as climate mitigation management options. The evaluation of field management will be more robust if more impact categories are considered, including missing aspects (i.e., soil fertility).
Keywords: Area-scaled and yield-scaled GHG emissions; Extensification; Intensification; Rice; Sustainable production.
Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.