Special Thesis & Basic Research

Effects of Rice-frog Co-cultivation on the Physicochemical Characteristics of the Soil and Grain Yield

Expand
  • 1China National Rice Research Institute, Hangzhou 310006, China
    2Aquatic Products and Agricultural Machinery Center of Changxing County, Changxing, Zhejiang 313100, China
    3Changxing Rice Frog Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd, Changxing, Zhejiang 313103, China
    4Fuchun Subdistricts, Fuyang District, Hangzhou 311400, China
    5Jiaxing Soil Fertilizer and Plant Protection and Rural Energy Master Station, Jiaxing, Zhejiang 314050

Received date: 2023-06-23

  Online published: 2023-09-15

Abstract

A field trail was conducted to evaluate the effects of conventional cultivation and rice-frog co-cultivation on the physicochemical characteristics and dynamic changes of nutrients of the soil and grain yield. The results showed that compared with CK, rice-frog co-culture increased the pH, electrical conductivity, total phosphorus and available phosphorus content of the soil, but decreased soil total nitrogen, alkali hydrolyzable nitrogen, available potassium, and organic matter content of the soil. During the same growth stage of rice, the soil nutrient content of DWH treatment (rice-frog co-culture with higher density frog) was higher than DWL treatment (rice-frog co-culture with low density frog). DWL treatment decreased rice yields significantly by 12.0%, while DWH treatment decreased rice yields by 3.1% with no significant difference compared with CK. The main reason for the decrease in rice yield caused by rice-frog co-culture was that it significantly reduced the effective panicle number of rice. It can be seen that cultivating an appropriate number of black spotted frogs under a rice cropping system will lead to a small decrease in rice yield, but improve the safety of rice and the output of black spotted frogs. Not only does it help to increase the economic benefits of rice fields per unit area, but also reduces environmental pollution and achieves better ecological benefits because the absence of chemical fertilizers and pesticides during production.

Cite this article

ZHU Lianfeng, FANG Weiping, ZHUAN Xuehao, KONG Yali, FAN Huihui, WU Chuanyi, SHI Yanping, XU Qingshan, ZHANG Lu, ZHU Chunquan, CAO Xiaochuang, JIN Qianyu, ZHANG Junhua . Effects of Rice-frog Co-cultivation on the Physicochemical Characteristics of the Soil and Grain Yield[J]. China Rice, 2023 , 29(5) : 23 -27 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2023.05.005

References

[1] YUAN L P. Development of hybrid rice to ensure food security[J]. Rice Science, 2014, 21(1): 1-2.
[2] ZHANG Z, DUAN Z, XU P, et al. Food security of China: The past, present and future[J]. Plant Omics, 2010, 3(6): 183-189.
[3] 张子璐, 刘峰, 侯庭钰. 我国稻田氮磷流失现状及影响因素研究进展[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(10):3292-3 302.
[4] 何忠全, 张志涛, 陈志谊. 我国水稻病虫害防治技术研究现状及发展策略[J]. 西南农业学报, 2004, 17(1):110-114
[5] 肖放, 陈欣, 成永旭. 稻渔综合种养技术模式与案例[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2019:63-68.
[6] 全国水产技术推广总站. 中国稻渔综合种养产业发展报告(2020)[J]. 中国水产, 2020(10):12- 19.
[7] 李嘉尧, 常东, 李柏年, 等. 不同稻田综合种养模式的成本效益分析[J]. 水产学报, 2014, 38(9):1431-1 438.
[8] 李兴华, 涂军明, 陈展鹏, 等. 稻蛙绿色种养模式研究及其可持续发展策略[J]. 农学学报, 2020, 10(12):98-103
[9] 曾兵兵, 赵和平. 2 种不同稻田综合种养模式对比试验[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2020, 26(22):93-94.
[10] 鲁艳红, 廖育林, 聂军, 等. 紫云英利用下有机稻—蛙生产模式及其效应比较[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2017(8):11-14.
[11] 徐曼, 邓正春, 顾振华, 等. 稻蛙绿色生态种养技术及效益分析[J]. 作物研究, 2020, 34(4):384-387.
[12] 鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2000.
[13] 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.
[14] 易芙蓉, 杨天娇, 赵宇辰, 等. 稻虾共作对稻田土壤耕作层养分的影响—基于益阳市南县的实证分析[J]. 作物研究, 2019, 33(5):424-427.
[15] 徐敏, 王武, 马旭洲. 稻蟹共生系统不同水稻栽培模式土壤理化性状和有效养分的变化规律[J]. 广东农业科学, 2013, 40(9):53-57.
[16] 刘志达, 曹津桥, 费加良, 等. 套养虎纹蛙对稻田不同形态无机磷含量及水稻产量的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2022(1):90-96.
[17] 岳玉波, 沙之敏, 赵峥, 等. 不同水稻种植模式对氮磷流失特征的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2014, 22(12):1424-1 432.
[18] 郭天荣, 刘瑞琪, 曾晴, 等. 稻蛙种养对水稻功能叶片和籽粒养分含量及产量构成的影响[J]. 分子植物育种, 2021, 20(15):5205-5 212.
Outlines

/

Copyright © Editorial office of China Rice
Tel: 0571-63370271, 63370368 E-mail: zgdm@163.com
Supported by Beijing Magtech Co., Ltd.