Effects of Combined Application of Organic Materials on Soil Organic Matter and Rice Quality in Rice-duck Farming System

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0872

Abstract

Abstract:

Rice-duck farming has been widely applied in optimal intensive rice cropping production in southern China. To investigate the effects of combined application of organic materials on soil organic matter and rice quality under rice-duck farming system, three cultivation treatments were established with conventional chemical fertilization as the control: chemical fertilizer + ducks, biochar + chemical fertilizer + ducks, and green manure + biochar + chemical fertilizer + ducks. The study examined the impacts of combined application of organic materials on soil microbial biomass nitrogen, soil organic matter, rice yield, and rice quality. The results showed (1) the combined application of organic materials influenced the transformation of organic and inorganic nitrogen in rice-duck farming soils. Compared with the treatment without organic material, biochar and green manure + biochar significantly increased soil microbial biomass nitrogen in double-cropping rice fields, with early-season rice increasing by 51.73% and 35.02%, and late-season rice increasing by 30.67% and 50.35%. (2) The combined application of organic material promoted the accumulation of soil organic matter in rice-duck farming systems. Even without organic material addition, soil organic matter content under rice-duck farming was significantly higher than that under conventional fertilization, with increases of 3.47% in early-season rice and 8.11% in late-season rice. Treatments with organic materials further enhanced soil organic matter compared with chemical fertilizer alone, with biochar increasing by 80.05% and 55.75% in early- and late-season rice fields, respectively, with green manure + biochar increasing by 93.15% and 80.92%. (3) The combined application of organic material improved rice quality under rice-duck farming. Rice cooking quality of biochar and biochar+green manure treatments was superior compared with treatment without organic materials, both reaching the first-grade rice quality standard. The appearance quality of rice under all rice-duck farming treatments met the first-grade rice quality standard. The combined application of green manure or biochar in the rice-duck farming system is beneficial for optimizing intensive rice production in southern China.

Key words: intensive rice farming, organic materials, soil organic matter, rice quality, rice-duck farming

CLC Number:

S142+1，S158.5，S511.4+2

ZHOU Fengjue, MA Jieping, HU Junming, LU Zhancai, LI Shi, LI Tingting, ZHANG Junhui, ZHENG Fuhai, LI Yuxiang, LIU Meikun. Effects of Combined Application of Organic Materials on Soil Organic Matter and Rice Quality in Rice-duck Farming System[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(15): 1-6.

Figures/Tables 6

References 37

[1]	肖阳. 农业绿色发展背景下中国化肥减量增效研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2018.
[2]	宋晓明, 柳王荣, 姜珊, 等. 湖南省农业面源污染与农村水环境质量的响应关系分析[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2022, 41(7):1509-1519.
[3]	仪凯, 仪小梅. 稻田生态种养防控农田面源污染研究进展[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2022, 50(9):27-29.
[4]	ATA-UL-KARIM S T, LIU X J, LU Z Z, et al. Estimation of nitrogen fertilizer requirement for rice crop using critical nitrogen dilution curve[J]. Field crops research, 2017, 201:32-40. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.10.009 URL
[5]	李诗, 李婷婷, 胡钧铭, 等. 有机无机氮农田环境效应与减肥增效途径综述[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(14):43-49.
[6]	梁元振, 赵京考, 吴德亮, 等. 秋施有机肥对土壤生物学、理化性状及玉米产量的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2017, 24(3):113-118.
[7]	徐明岗, 李冬初, 李菊梅, 等. 化肥有机肥配施对水稻养分吸收和产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2008, 41(10):3133-3139.
[8]	崔新卫, 张杨珠, 高菊生, 等. 长期不同施肥处理对红壤稻田土壤性质及晚稻产量与品质的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2019, 34(6):190-197. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20190052
[9]	魏宗辉, 胡钧铭, 刘顺翱, 等. 有机资源等氮替代化肥对免耕稻田N₂O排放及水稻产量的影响[J]. 中国农业气象, 2021, 42(7):561-571.
[10]	魏夏新, 熊俊芬, 李涛, 等. 有机物料还田对双季稻田土壤有机碳及其活性组分的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020(7):2373-2380. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202007.021
[11]	蒋岩, 赵灿, 刘光明, 等. 稳稻种养模式下水稻产量形成及周年经济效益研究[J]. 中国稻米, 2021(5):23-28. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2021.05.005
[12]	吴金水, 李勇, 童成立, 等. 亚热带水稻土碳循环的生物地球化学特点与长期固碳应[J]. 农业现代化研究, 2018, 39(6):895-906.
[13]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社,2000:30-34.
[14]	禹朴家, 范高华, 韩可欣, 等. 基于土壤微生物生物量碳和酶活性指标的土壤肥力质量评价初探[J]. 农业现代化研究, 2018, 39(1):163-169.
[15]	李成芳, 曹凑贵, 展茗, 等. 稻鸭共作对稻田氮素变化及土壤微生物的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2008(5):2115-2122.
[16]	GUNDALE M J, DELUCA T H. Temperature and source material influence ecological attributes of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir charcoal[J]. Forest ecology and management, 2006, 231:86-93. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.004 URL
[17]	李诗, 张俊辉, 胡钧铭, 等. 有机肥等氮替代对双季稻根区土壤结构环境及根活力的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2023, 54(11):3206-3216.
[18]	陈琳, 杜海伦, 刘晴, 等. 有机物料还田对夏玉米田土壤氮素形态、转化及利用的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2022, 27(7):1-11.
[19]	胡立煌, 史文竹, 项剑, 等. 生物炭、秸秆和粪肥对滨海盐碱土氮矿化和硝化作用的影响[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2020, 36(8):1089-1096.
[20]	徐阳春, 沈其荣, 冉炜, 等. 长期免耕与施用有机肥对土壤微生物生物量碳氮、磷的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2002, 39(1):89-96.
[21]	SAINJU U M, LENSSEN A W. Dryland soil carbon dynamics under alfalfa and durum-forage cropping sequences[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2011, 113(1):30-37. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2011.02.002 URL
[22]	杨蕊嘉, 温萌萌, 刘洋, 等. 绿肥填闲种植和施氮对旱作冬小麦农田土壤氮组分的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2024, 30(9):1639-1649.
[23]	史琼彬, 赵秀兰, 常同举, 等. 耕作方式对紫色水稻土团聚体中有机质及重金属的分布特征影响[J]. 环境科学, 2016, 37(5):1923-1930.
[24]	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.
[25]	李丹丹, 何昊, 潘非凡, 等. 优化减氮与施用生物炭对双季稻土壤温室气体排放及产量的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2023, 42(11):2625-2634.
[26]	杨铭, 杜星佑, 吕仿杰, 等. 不同轮耕模式与生物炭还田对小麦产量、品质及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2024, 52(18):91-98.
[27]	吕玉虎, 郭晓彦, 李本银, 等. 翻压不同量紫云英配施减量化肥对土壤肥力和水稻产量的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2017(5):94-98.
[28]	陈芳, 张康康, 谷思诚, 等. 不同种类生物质炭及施用量对水稻生长及土壤养分的影响[J]. 华业大学学报, 2019, 38(5):57-63.
[29]	侍瑞高, 蒋斌. 稻鸭共作模式下优质食味水稻产量及效益[J]. 中国农技推广, 2022, 38(3):21-23.
[30]	何明菊, 刘文奇, 覃杨华, 等. 不同绿肥翻压还田对水稻生长的影响及节肥效果[J]. 农业研究与应用, 2025, 38(2):118-127.
[31]	赵春容, 范龙, 陈佳娜, 等. 不同氮肥水平下生物炭施用对杂交中粒稻产量的影响[J]. 杂交水稻, 2022, 37(4):115-120.
[32]	SUI Y H, GAO J P, LIU C H, et al. Interactive effects of straw-derived biochar and N fertilization on soil C storage and rice productivity in rice paddies of Northeast China[J]. Science of the total environment, 2016, 544:203-210. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.079 URL
[33]	全文博. 生物炭对稻虾共作土壤理化性质和水稻生长的影响[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2022.
[34]	高嵩涓, 周国朋, 曹卫东, 等. 南方稻田紫云英作冬绿肥的增产节肥效应与机制[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2020, 26(12):2115-2126.
[35]	陈莹莹. 江苏早熟晚粳品种稻米品质对氮肥的响应及其类型[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2012.
[36]	王胜昭, 钱壮壮, 庄舜尧, 等. 绿肥配施生物炭基肥对水稻产量和氮素利用的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(5):122-129.
[37]	石吕, 薛亚光, 韩笑, 等. 土壤类型条件下生物炭施用量对水稻产量、品质和土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2022(23):222-228.

	处理	化肥				生物炭	紫云英	田菁
	处理	复合肥	尿素	磷肥	钾肥	生物炭	紫云英	田菁
早稻	CK	5.92	1.93		1.43
	E1	5.92	1.93		1.43
	E2	5.47	1.08		0.25	29.60
	E3	1.81		3.16	0.26	29.60	263.34
晚稻	CK	5.92	1.93		1.43
	E1	5.92	1.93		1.43
	E2	5.47	1.08		0.25	29.60
	E3	0.02	0.59	3.77		29.6		161.29

	处理	化肥				生物炭	紫云英	田菁
	处理	复合肥	尿素	磷肥	钾肥	生物炭	紫云英	田菁
早稻	CK	5.92	1.93		1.43
	E1	5.92	1.93		1.43
	E2	5.47	1.08		0.25	29.60
	E3	1.81		3.16	0.26	29.60	263.34
晚稻	CK	5.92	1.93		1.43
	E1	5.92	1.93		1.43
	E2	5.47	1.08		0.25	29.60
	E3	0.02	0.59	3.77		29.6		161.29

	处理	有效穗数/(×10⁴/hm²)	每穗粒数/粒	结实率/%	千粒重/g	理论产量/(kg/hm²)	实际产量/(kg/hm²)
早稻	CK	155.81±3.62b	271.33±0.33a	83.54±2.43ab	19.14±0.01	6749.95±33.60b	6271.37±152.08c
	E1	173.93±0.00b	266.33±5.18a	82.22±0.88b	19.31±0.04	7352.96±89.62a	6957.48±47.90a
	E2	188.42±3.62a	212.00±4.73c	87.58±0.62a	19.33±0.13	6755.04±54.25b	6649.69±43.06b
	E3	181.18±14.49ab	236.33±10.11b	85.44±0.65ab	19.22±0.10	6980.44±282.49ab	6106.95±54.07c
晚稻	CK	137.70±3.62b	264.33±2.03	84.18±0.45ab	21.94±0.04b	6720.95±185.86	6122.16±17.84
	E1	150.31±4.49ab	237.33±14.77	85.76±1.05a	22.47±0.05ab	6845.44±182.15	6433.37±348.01
	E2	152.19±6.28ab	242.13±6.66	82.19±0.27b	23.01±0.33a	6977.19±477.53	6300.03±115.48
	E3	159.44±3.62a	244.00±7.21	84.77±1.29ab	21.11±0.02c	6952.32±38.74	6351.03±50.00

	处理	有效穗数/(×10⁴/hm²)	每穗粒数/粒	结实率/%	千粒重/g	理论产量/(kg/hm²)	实际产量/(kg/hm²)
早稻	CK	155.81±3.62b	271.33±0.33a	83.54±2.43ab	19.14±0.01	6749.95±33.60b	6271.37±152.08c
	E1	173.93±0.00b	266.33±5.18a	82.22±0.88b	19.31±0.04	7352.96±89.62a	6957.48±47.90a
	E2	188.42±3.62a	212.00±4.73c	87.58±0.62a	19.33±0.13	6755.04±54.25b	6649.69±43.06b
	E3	181.18±14.49ab	236.33±10.11b	85.44±0.65ab	19.22±0.10	6980.44±282.49ab	6106.95±54.07c
晚稻	CK	137.70±3.62b	264.33±2.03	84.18±0.45ab	21.94±0.04b	6720.95±185.86	6122.16±17.84
	E1	150.31±4.49ab	237.33±14.77	85.76±1.05a	22.47±0.05ab	6845.44±182.15	6433.37±348.01
	E2	152.19±6.28ab	242.13±6.66	82.19±0.27b	23.01±0.33a	6977.19±477.53	6300.03±115.48
	E3	159.44±3.62a	244.00±7.21	84.77±1.29ab	21.11±0.02c	6952.32±38.74	6351.03±50.00

处理	直链淀粉含量/%	蛋白质含量/%	糙米率/%	精米率/%	整精米率/%	垩白粒率/%	粒长/cm	长宽比
CK	16.57±0.11b	9.31±0.70	75.87±0.64a	65.61±0.95a	40.94±2.02b	1.00±0.00	7.72±0.18	4.17±0.02c
E1	18.06±0.61a	8.78±0.34	73.40±0.90b	61.38±0.30b	49.43±2.30a	1.00±0.15	7.52±0.08	4.56±0.16b
E2	14.65±0.27c	9.49±0.05	75.87±1.82a	65.41±0.40a	48.44±0.93a	0.67±0.08	7.83±0.10	4.25±0.03c
E3	13.44±0.39c	10.17±0.33	76.66±0.65a	65.45±0.64a	52.03±0.92a	0.33±0.18	7.65±0.23	4.75±0.11a