引用本文:兰国俊,胡雪峰,程畅,罗凡,陆思文,赵景龙,张伟杰.稻鸭共生对土壤养分和水稻病虫害防控的影响[J].土壤学报,2021,58(5):1299-1310. DOI:10.11766/trxb202003050694
LAN Guojun,HU Xuefeng,CHENG Chang,LUO Fan,LU Siwen,ZHAO Jinglong,ZHANG Weijie.Effects of Raising Duck in Paddy Field on Soil Nutrients and Rice Pests and Diseases Control[J].Acta Pedologica Sinica,2021,58(5):1299-1310. DOI:10.11766/trxb202003050694
【打印本页】   【HTML】   【下载PDF全文】   查看/发表评论  【EndNote】   【RefMan】   【BibTex】
←前一篇|后一篇→ 过刊浏览    高级检索
本文已被:浏览 331次   下载 768 本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
分享到: 微信 更多
稻鸭共生对土壤养分和水稻病虫害防控的影响
兰国俊, 胡雪峰, 程畅, 罗凡, 陆思文, 赵景龙, 张伟杰
上海大学环境与化学工程学院, 上海 200444
摘要:
在上海淀山湖稻区,设置稻鸭共生田间试验,研究稻田养鸭对水稻土壤养分、田面水和水稻病虫害防控的影响。试验分为四个处理:(1)稻鸭共生(DR);(2)受稻鸭共生区田面水影响,但无鸭子进入(ND);(3)受稻鸭共生区田面水影响,无鸭子进入,但人工除草(NDW);(4)不受稻鸭共生区田面水影响,水稻单作(CK)。结果表明:无论受稻鸭直接影响(DR)还是间接影响(ND和NDW),均能显著提高土壤养分。DR处理土壤有机质和碱解氮平均含量分别为33.0 mg·g-1、138.3 μg·g-1,高于CK 13.6%、17.6%。而且,DR处理鸭子活动搅动水土层,增加溶解氧,提高了土壤微生物量和土壤酶活性。受鸭子活动和粪便排泄影响,稻鸭共生区(DR、ND、NDW)田面水养分大多显著高于CK(P<0.05),尤其是在9月26日,其铵态氮、有效磷、总磷含量分别达到1.18 mg·L-1、0.40 mg·L-1、0.93 mg·L-1,高于CK 137%、178%、316%。DR处理鸭子啄食、践踏及浑水作用,抑制杂草生长,杂草密度平均较CK降低了91.6%;ND处理杂草密度很高;NDW处理杂草密度仍高于DR处理。这说明水田定期人工拔草效果不及稻田鸭除草效果。ND、NDW和DR处理显著促进水稻分蘖,分蘖数平均高于CK 33.6%、32.1%和34.2%。DR处理卷叶螟、纹枯病和稻飞虱显著低于CK和其他处理。DR处理增产效果显著,水稻产量达到8 507 kg·hm-2,为CK的1.42倍。总之,稻鸭共生增肥、抑草、防虫效果显著,有利于大幅减少农药和化肥使用,保护生态环境,同时,产出健康优质稻米和鸭肉。
关键词:  稻田养鸭  土壤养分  田面水  抑草  防虫
基金项目:国家自然科学基金项目(41877005)和上海市现代农业产业技术体系建设(沪农科产字(2019)第9号)资助
Effects of Raising Duck in Paddy Field on Soil Nutrients and Rice Pests and Diseases Control
LAN Guojun, HU Xuefeng, CHENG Chang, LUO Fan, LU Siwen, ZHAO Jinglong, ZHANG Weijie
School of Environmental and Chemical Engineering, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China
Abstract:
[Objective] A field experiment was conducted in paddy fields in the Dianshan Lake region of Shanghai to explore effects of raising ducks in paddy fields on soil nutrients, field surface water, rice growth, and control of weeds, pests and diseases.[Method] The experiment was designed to have three treatments and one CK, i.e. duck-raising in paddy field (DR); No duck-raising in the fields irrigated with drainage from Treatment DR(ND); No duck-raising in the field irrigated with drainage from Treatment DR, plus manual weeding (NDW); and rice cultivated as usual with irrigation of normal water (CK). No pesticides and herbicides were applied during the whole experiment to prevent their disturbances to rice and duck growth, soil nutrients and enzyme activities.[Result] Results show that all of the treatments, no matter whether it was directly affected by duck raising (Treatment DR), or indirectly affected by irrigation (Treatments NDW and ND), increased the content of soil nutrients. Treatment DR was the highest in the effect, being 11.0%, 17.6%, 11.5%, 13.3% and 13.6% higher in content of total nitrogen, alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen, available phosphorus, readily available potassium and organic matter in the soil, respectively, than CK during the rice growth season, and Treatment NDW and ND was 9.8%, 8.4% and 10.9% higher, and 3.4%, 2.1%, and 7.1% higher than CK, respectively, in content of alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen, available phosphorus, and readily available potassium. Meanwhile, stirring of the flooding water by ducks in Treatment DR increased the content of dissolved oxygen and hence microbial biomass and activities of soil enzymes, especially the activity of urease, catalase and sucrase, by 21.0%, 20.6% and 13.9%, respectively. Thanks to the activities and fecal excretion of ducks in Treatment DR, the flooding water in Treatments DR, ND and NDW was significantly higher than that in CK (P<0.05) in nutrient content. Especially on September 26, the flooding water in Treatment DR peaked up to 1.18 mg·L-1, 0.40 mg·L-1 and 0.93 mg·L-1, respectively in contents of ammonium nitrogen and available and total phosphorus, or was 137%, 177% and 316% higher than in CK. Pecking, trampling and stirring of the ducks in the fields effectively inhibited weed growth, reducing the density of weeds by 91.6% on average in Treatment DR. In contrast, the density of weeds was the highest in Treatment ND and then in Treatment NDW and in Treatment DR, suggesting that the effects of regular manual weeding in the paddy fields on weed control were not so good as that of raising ducks in paddy fields. All the treatments, DR, NDW and ND, stimulated tillering of the rice significantly or by 34.2%, 32.1% and 33.6%, respectively. The incidence of rice leaf rollers, sheath blight or rice planthoppers was significantly lower in Treatment DR than in CK and the other treatments. Moreover, Treatment DR was also significant in yield increasing effect, with grain yield reaching up to 8 507 kg·hm-2, 1.42 times that of CK. [Conclusions] In general, raising ducks in paddy fields can improve soil fertility, inhibit weeds and reduce incidence of rice pests and diseases effectively, which is beneficial to minimizing the utilization of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers in paddy fields and controlling non-point source agricultural pollution. Moreover, it helps produce high quality healthy food-rice and ducks.
Key words:  Rice-duck symbiosis  Soil nutrients  Flooding water  Weed suppression  Insect prevention