| 稻虾共作对秸秆还田后稻田温室气体排放的影响 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 徐祥玉,张敏敏,彭成林,佀国涵,周剑雄,谢媛圆,袁家富.稻虾共作对秸秆还田后稻田温室气体排放的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2017,25(11):1591-1603. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 徐祥玉 张敏敏 彭成林 佀国涵 周剑雄 谢媛圆 袁家富 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 农业部潜江农业环境与耕地保育科学观测实验站 潜江 433100;湖北省农业科学院植保土肥研究所/农业部废弃物肥料化利用重点实验室 武汉 430064 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 国家自然科学基金项目（41301306）、湖北省农业科学院竞争性项目（2016jzxjh008）、湖北省农业科技创新项目（2016-620-000-001-020）、国家科技支撑计划课题（2013BAD07B10）和湖北省农业科学院重大研发成果培育专项项目（2017CGPY01）资助 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 稻虾共作模式是稻田种养复合模式的重要组成部分,其主要特点是稻草全量还田、非稻季持续淹水和周年养殖克氏原螯虾。目前对稻虾共作模式稻田温室气体排放的影响尚不清楚。本研究以江汉平原冬泡无稻草还田为对照,设置冬泡+稻草还田和冬泡+稻草还田+养虾处理,探讨稻草还田及稻虾共作对稻田系统CH_4、N_2O和CO_2排放的影响,为准确评估稻田温室气体排放提供数据支撑和理论支持。结果表明,在大田监测期间,冬泡+稻草还田处理CH_4累积排放量比冬泡无稻草还田处理显著增加(P0.05),2015年和2016年增幅分别为27.23%和60.08%;冬泡+稻草还田+养虾处理CH_4累积排放量比冬泡+稻草还田显著降低(P0.05),2015年和2016年降幅分别为29.02%和41.19%。冬泡+稻草还田处理CO_2累积排放比冬泡无稻草还田处理显著提高;与冬泡无稻草还田处理相比较,冬泡+稻草还田处理和冬泡+稻草还田+养虾处理对N_2O累积排放无显著影响。从温室效应角度看,冬泡+稻草还田处理温室效应比冬泡无稻草还田处理大幅度增加,而冬泡+稻草还田基础上进行养虾则可大幅度降低CH_4排放,从而降低因秸秆还田带来的温室效应增强。所有处理水稻产量无显著差异,与冬泡+稻草还田处理相比,冬泡+稻草还田+养虾可显著降低温室气体排放强度。和冬泡无稻草还田处理相比,冬泡+稻草还田和冬泡+稻草还田+养虾对土壤可溶性有机碳(DOC)、乙酸和NH_4~+-N并无显著影响。冬泡+稻草还田+养虾可极显著提高单位面积收益。
|
| 关 键 词： | 稻虾共作 秸秆还田 甲烷 氧化亚氮 温室气体 |
| 收稿时间： | 2017/4/1 0:00:00 |
| 修稿时间： | 2017/6/21 0:00:00 |
Effect of rice-crayfish co-culture on greenhouse gases emission in straw-puddled paddy fields |
| |
| XU Xiangyu,ZHANG Minmin,PENG Chenglin,SI Guohan,ZHOU Jianxiong,XIE Yuanyuan and YUAN Jiafu.Effect of rice-crayfish co-culture on greenhouse gases emission in straw-puddled paddy fields[J].Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture,2017,25(11):1591-1603. |
| |
| Authors: | XU Xiangyu ZHANG Minmin PENG Chenglin SI Guohan ZHOU Jianxiong XIE Yuanyuan and YUAN Jiafu |
| |
| Institution: | Qianjiang Scientific Observation and Experimental Station of Agro-Environment and Arable Land Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture, Qianjiang 433100, China;Institute of Plant Protection and Soil Fertilizer, Hubei Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Agricultural Waste Fertilization, Ministry of Agriculture, Wuhan 430064, China,Qianjiang Scientific Observation and Experimental Station of Agro-Environment and Arable Land Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture, Qianjiang 433100, China;Institute of Plant Protection and Soil Fertilizer, Hubei Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Agricultural Waste Fertilization, Ministry of Agriculture, Wuhan 430064, China,Qianjiang Scientific Observation and Experimental Station of Agro-Environment and Arable Land Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture, Qianjiang 433100, China;Institute of Plant Protection and Soil Fertilizer, Hubei Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Agricultural Waste Fertilization, Ministry of Agriculture, Wuhan 430064, China,Qianjiang Scientific Observation and Experimental Station of Agro-Environment and Arable Land Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture, Qianjiang 433100, China;Institute of Plant Protection and Soil Fertilizer, Hubei Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Agricultural Waste Fertilization, Ministry of Agriculture, Wuhan 430064, China,Qianjiang Scientific Observation and Experimental Station of Agro-Environment and Arable Land Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture, Qianjiang 433100, China;Institute of Plant Protection and Soil Fertilizer, Hubei Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Agricultural Waste Fertilization, Ministry of Agriculture, Wuhan 430064, China,Qianjiang Scientific Observation and Experimental Station of Agro-Environment and Arable Land Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture, Qianjiang 433100, China;Institute of Plant Protection and Soil Fertilizer, Hubei Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Agricultural Waste Fertilization, Ministry of Agriculture, Wuhan 430064, China and Qianjiang Scientific Observation and Experimental Station of Agro-Environment and Arable Land Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture, Qianjiang 433100, China;Institute of Plant Protection and Soil Fertilizer, Hubei Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Agricultural Waste Fertilization, Ministry of Agriculture, Wuhan 430064, China |
| |
| Abstract: | Traditional agricultural systems are currently faced with the challenge of insufficient food production and reducing the negative effects of crop cultivation and population growth on the environment. One effective way to meet this challenge is the crop and animal co-culture in the paddy fields in South China. Rice-crayfish co-culture is the main component of such way, which has distinctive characteristics of deep waterlogging in off-rice season, total or partial direct straw return to fields, crayfish breeding in the whole year and strong crayfish burrowing, rapid planting area and high economic benefits. While the burrowing behavior of crayfish increases water-soil surface area, deep water management increases total dissolves oxygen and concurrently weakened methane transmission via bubbling. Although all the above measures theoretically reduce methane emission in paddy fields, the potential effect on global warming of rice-crayfish co-culture systems is not entirely clear. This study involved three treatments- waterlogging in off-rice season (W), waterlogging in off-rice season with straw return (WS) and waterlogging in off-rice season with straw return and crayfish (WSC). The aim was to investigate the characteristics of methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions under different treatments and to provide data support for accurate assessment of paddy greenhouse gas emission. The results showed that the cumulative CH4 emissions were respectively (10.0±1.2) g·m-2, (9.2±2.8) g·m-2 and (12.7±1.2) g·m-2 under W, WSC and WS in 2015 and (28.5±5.2) g·m-2, (26.8±2.1) g·m-2 and (45.6±3.3) g·m-2 under W, WSC and WS in 2016. Compare with W, cumulative CH4 emission under WS increased by 27.23% and 60.08% respectively in 2015 and 2016. Compared with WS, WSC decreased cumulative CH4 emission respectively by 29.02% and 41.19% in 2015 and 2016. Cumulative CO2 emission significantly increased under WS, compare with W in both years. There was only a slight effect on cumulative N2O emission of WS and WSC compared with W. Rice yield was 8.81 t·hm-2 under WSC treatment and not different between W and WS treatments. Global warming potential (GWP) of WS significantly increased compare with W, and this increase was suppressed by WSC due to decreasing CH4 emission. Then compared with WS, WSC treatment significantly decreased greenhouse gas intensity. There were no significant differences in soil dissolved organic carbon, acetic acid, NH4+-N and NO3--N contents among W, WS and WSC. Compare with W and WS, WSC considerably increased rice-crayfish co-culture benefits per unit area with less greenhouse gases emission. |
| |
| Keywords: | Rice-crayfish co-culture Straw return Methane Nitrous oxide Greenhouse gas |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 万方数据 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《中国生态农业学报》浏览原始摘要信息 |
| 点击此处可从《中国生态农业学报》下载免费的PDF全文 |
|
