Influence of Rice-duck Integrated Farming Systems on Soil pH and Nutrients

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0756

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the effects of different rice-duck integrated farming systems on soil pH and nutrients, this experiment selected fields such as conventional rice-duck co-cropping, green fertilizer and rice-duck integrated farming and multi-year rice-duck integrated farming to study the changes of soil pH and nutrient levels in different plots. The results showed that compared with the control group of conventional rice cultivation method, the decrease of pH and nutrient level in the rice-duck integrated farming group was smaller than that in the control group. Even the level of alkaline nitrogen of the rice-duck integrated farming group increased by 8.6 mg/kg after harvesting compared to before ducking, while in the control group, the alkaline nitrogen level after harvesting ducks decreased by 4.98 mg/kg compared to before ducking. For green fertilizer and rice-duck integrated farming, the alkaline nitrogen level increased significantly (P<0.05) from the planting green fertilizer to the flowering stage, the levels of quick-acting phosphorus and quick-acting potassium decreased by 21.95% and 33.49%, respectively, and the soil pH decreased by 14.05%. In addition, through the monitoring of rice-duck integrated farming fields for many years, it was found that with the increase of the number of rice-duck integrated stubble, soil fertility, especially alkaline nitrogen level, could be improved, and the pH of the soil could also be better maintained at a stable level. The above results showed that the rice-duck integrated farming model could enhance soil fertility by improving soil alkaline nitrogen level, and the effect became more obvious with the increase of planting years. Planting green fertilizer in this model could also further improve soil alkaline nitrogen level. Therefore, the rice-duck integrated farming model was a planting model that could effectively maintain and improve soil fertility, which was worth popularizing and applying.

Key words: rice and duck integrated farming, soil pH, alkaline nitrogen, available phosphorus, quick-acting potassium

GUO Yujiao, LUO Xuan, JING Haoqi, WENG Kaiqi, CAO Zhengfeng, ZHANG Yang, WANG Xiaozhi, CHEN Guohong, XU Qi. Influence of Rice-duck Integrated Farming Systems on Soil pH and Nutrients[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(25): 84-88.

Figures/Tables 3

References 27

[1]	陈印军, 肖碧林, 卢布, 等. 我国谷物发展态势与未来展望[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2008(5):1-6.
[2]	张华. 土壤对水稻高产的重要性[J]. 致富天地, 2008(3):27.
[3]	张潇. 长期定位施肥对土壤改良及水稻产量、品质的影响[J]. 新农业, 2019(11):23-24.
[4]	王宝义. 中国现代农业生态化发展历程与政策导向[J]. 福建农林大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2018, 21(2):38-46.
[5]	梁玉刚, 赵杨, 戴力, 等. 稻鸭共育模式综述[J]. 生态学杂志, 2022, 41(11):9.
[6]	甄若宏, 王强盛, 沈晓昆, 等. 我国稻鸭共作生态农业的发展现状与技术展望[J]. 农村生态环境, 2004(4):64-67.
[7]	禹盛苗, 朱练峰, 欧阳由男, 等. 稻鸭种养模式对稻田土壤理化性状,肥力因素及水稻产量的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2014, 45(1):151-156.
[8]	刘磊, 宋娜娜, 齐晓丽, 等. 水稻根系特征与氮吸收利用效率关系的研究进展[J]. 作物杂志, 2022(1):11-19.
[9]	展茗, 曹凑贵, 江洋, 等. 不同稻作模式下稻田土壤活性有机碳变化动态[J]. 应用生态学报, 2010, 21(8):2010-2016.
[10]	余翔, 王强盛, 王绍华, 等. 稻鸭共作系统的稻田氮素渗漏和径流特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2009, 20(1):143-148.
[11]	朱金明, 施其俊, 胡南河, 等. 稻鸭共育对稻田土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2006(12):2803.
[12]	张苗苗, 宗良纲, 谢桐洲. 有机稻鸭共作对土壤养分动态变化和经济效益的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2010, 18(2).
[13]	梁开明, 章家恩, 林田安, 等. 一稻两鸭共作对稻田土壤养分动态的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2014, 23(5):769-776.
[14]	展茗, 曹凑贵, 汪金平, 等. 稻鸭、稻鱼复合生态系统土壤微生物多样性特征分析[J]. 土壤学报, 2008, 45(6):1179-1182.
[15]	孙兴全, 陈捷, 李雅乾, 等. 稻鸭共作模式和传统稻田养鸭比较的思考[J]. 安徽农学通报(下半月刊), 2012, 18(10):120-122.
[16]	王爱国, 张家毓, 高安慧, 等. 浅析绿肥种植对土壤肥力及水稻产量的影响[J]. 农技服务, 2015, 32(4):82,75.
[17]	席莹莹. 绿肥种类和种植方式对水稻产量、养分吸收及土壤肥力的影响[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2014.
[18]	许德海, 禹盛苗, 金千瑜, 等. 稻鸭共育无公害高效益技术研究成果与应用[J]. 中国稻米, 2006(3):37-39.
[19]	杨志辉, 黄璜, 王华. 稻-鸭复合生态系统稻田土壤质量研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2004, 35(2):117-121.
[20]	甄若宏, 王强盛, 周建涛, 等. 稻鸭共作复合系统的生态环境效应研究[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2008, 36(21):9008-9011.
[21]	李春喜, 韩蕊, 邵云, 等. 黄淮海地区麦玉周年土壤肥力与玉米产量相关和通径分析[J]. 玉米科学, 2019(3):127-133.
[22]	杨曾平, 徐明岗, 聂军, 等. 长期冬种绿肥对双季稻种植下红壤性水稻土质量的影响及其评价[J]. 水土保持学报, 2011, 25(3):92-102.
[23]	高菊生, 曹卫东, 李冬初, 等. 长期双季稻绿肥轮作对水稻产量及稻田土壤有机质的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2011, 31(16):4542-4548.
[24]	章家恩, 赵美玉, 陈进, 等. 鸭稻共作方式对土壤肥力因素的影响[J]. 生态环境, 2004, 13(4):654-655.
[25]	李云明, 赵守清, 陈绍才, 等. 稻鸭共育技术控制水稻主要害虫杂草效果分析[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2004, 24(2):13-14.
[26]	李斌, 仇芹. 稻鸭共作生产性状分析与技术要点[J]. 基层农技推广, 2019(8):97-99.
[27]	张军, 刘菁, 陈长青. 有机稻鸭共作对土壤理化性状和细菌群落空间分布的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2020, 39(3):822-829.

组别	项目	pH	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	有机质/(g/kg)
稻鸭共作组	放鸭前	6.72±0.13	160.17±4.43	5.67±1.19	58.50±3.77	26.92±2.22
	收鸭后	6.09±0.08	168.77±5.18	5.54±0.47	51.87±2.30	23.85±0.62
	差值	0.63	-8.60	0.13	6.63	3.07
空白对照组	放鸭前	6.64±0.11	161.74±5.59	6.03±1.22	61.00±4.05	25.89±3.67
	收鸭后	5.89±0.07	156.76±4.87	5.38±0.72	53.91±3.49	20.32±1.85
	差值	0.75	4.98	0.65	10.09	5.57

组别	项目	pH	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	有机质/(g/kg)
稻鸭共作组	放鸭前	6.72±0.13	160.17±4.43	5.67±1.19	58.50±3.77	26.92±2.22
	收鸭后	6.09±0.08	168.77±5.18	5.54±0.47	51.87±2.30	23.85±0.62
	差值	0.63	-8.60	0.13	6.63	3.07
空白对照组	放鸭前	6.64±0.11	161.74±5.59	6.03±1.22	61.00±4.05	25.89±3.67
	收鸭后	5.89±0.07	156.76±4.87	5.38±0.72	53.91±3.49	20.32±1.85
	差值	0.75	4.98	0.65	10.09	5.57

组别	pH	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	有机质/(g/kg)
种草前	7.90±0.60a	80.91±9.68c	15.31±2.26a	143.33±5.86a	28.07±2.08a
盛花期	6.76±0.11b	127.61±4.90b	11.95±0.84b	95.33±2.43c	31.51±0.82a
放鸭前	6.87±0.16b	164.32±5.98b	9.96±0.40b	99.11±1.02c	28.58±3.15a
收鸭后	5.94±0.13c	216.84±38.41a	10.85±0.29b	118.26±2.29b	31.36±0.87a

组别	pH	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	有机质/(g/kg)
种草前	7.90±0.60a	80.91±9.68c	15.31±2.26a	143.33±5.86a	28.07±2.08a
盛花期	6.76±0.11b	127.61±4.90b	11.95±0.84b	95.33±2.43c	31.51±0.82a
放鸭前	6.87±0.16b	164.32±5.98b	9.96±0.40b	99.11±1.02c	28.58±3.15a
收鸭后	5.94±0.13c	216.84±38.41a	10.85±0.29b	118.26±2.29b	31.36±0.87a

类别	pH	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	有机质/(g/kg)
普通种植	7.28±0.06a	23.78±0.72c	3.17±1.23a	204.22±23.50a	20.84±3.22b
5年稻鸭	6.80±0.23b	92.90±3.20b	5.79±1.29a	161.11±7.90a	31.29±1.64a
8年稻鸭	6.91±0.12b	321.37±4.71a	6.00±1.14a	222.67±54.42a	31.75±5.35a