保护性耕作对南方双季稻田土壤性质及产量的影响

doi:10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2025.04.003

生态环境学报 ›› 2025, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (4): 521-533.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2025.04.003

保护性耕作对南方双季稻田土壤性质及产量的影响

杜明慧¹^,²^,³(), 李伯欣⁴, 余英德⁵, 陶琳¹^,²^,³, 范世献¹^,²^,³, 余敏男¹^,²^,³, 于晓雯⁶, 邹淑君¹^,²^,³, 黄德银¹^,²^,³^,^*()

1.广东省科学院生态环境与土壤研究所，广东广州 510650
2.华南土壤污染控制与修复国家地方联合工程研究中心，广东广州 510650
3.广东省农业环境综合治理重点实验室，广东广州 510650
4.珠海市现代农业发展中心，广东珠海 519055
5.珠海市金湾区农业农村和水务局，广东珠海 519000
6.珠海市斗门区农业技术推广总站，广东珠海 519199

收稿日期:2024-09-08 出版日期:2025-04-18 发布日期:2025-04-24
通讯作者: ^*黄德银。E-mail: dyhuang@soil.gd.cn
作者简介:杜明慧（1997年生），女，硕士，研究方向为土壤污染研究防治。E-mail: mhdu@soil.gd.cn
基金资助:
广东省科学院百名青年人才培养专项(2020GDASYL-20200104018);广东省科技计划项目(2023B1212060044)

Effects of Soil Properties and Yield of Double-Cropping Rice in Southern China under Conservation Tillage Mode

DU Minghui¹^,²^,³(), LI Boxin⁴, YU Yingde⁵, TAO Lin¹^,²^,³, FAN Shixian¹^,²^,³, YU Minnan¹^,²^,³, YU Xiaowen⁶, ZOU Shujun¹^,²^,³, HUANG Deyin¹^,²^,³^,^*()

1. Institute of Eco-environmental and Soil Sciences, Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510650, P. R. China
2. National-Regional Joint Engineering Research Center for Soil Pollution Control and Remediation in South China, Guangzhou 510650, P. R. China
3. Guangdong Key Laboratory of Integrated Agro-environmental Pollution Control and Management, Guangzhou 510650, P. R. China
4. Zhuhai Modern Agricultural Development Center, Zhuhai 519055, P. R. China
5. Zhuhai Jinwan District Agriculture Rural and Water Bureau, Zhuhai 519000, P. R. China
6. Zhuhai Doumen District Agricultural Technology Extension Station, Zhuhai 519199, P. R. China

Received:2024-09-08 Online:2025-04-18 Published:2025-04-24

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 保护性耕作相比于传统高强度的耕作方式减少了对土壤的扰动，是一种环保且经济的耕作方法。选取广东省雷州和大埔两个双季稻种植区进行2 a的定位试验，以传统耕作为对照，研究免耕、少耕保护性耕作方式对稻田土壤结构、土壤有机质及水稻产量的影响。结果表明：保护性耕作对雷州和大埔的土壤容重和孔隙度均无显著影响，而少耕模式对土壤有机质和大团聚体含量的影响存在地域差异。在雷州试验区，少耕模式总体上增加了土壤有机质和大团聚体的含量，增幅最高分别可达48.8%和17.4%；而在大埔试验区，有机质略有降低，大团聚体含量无显著变化。另外，耕作方式对水稻产量产生显著的影响，在雷州和大埔试验区，双季稻产量均为少耕模式下最高（p<0.05），增幅最高可达12.7%；免耕模式略高于传统耕作。少耕模式能减缓南方地区因降雨充沛导致的淋溶、地表径流和氮磷流失，在一定程度上减少土壤侵蚀，进而增加水稻产量。该研究表明短期的保护性耕作模式（2 a）对土壤结构的影响并不显著，但少耕模式是南方双季稻区相对较优的耕作方式。研究结果对探索不同耕作模式下提升稻田土壤肥力和作物产量具有实践意义。

关键词: 耕作模式, 双季稻, 土壤结构, 土壤有机质, 水稻产量

Abstract:

Conservation tillage, which reduces soil disturbance compared to traditional high-intensity tillage methods, is an environmentally friendly and economical approach. In this study, two double-cropping rice-planting areas in Leizhou and Dapu in Guangdong Province were selected for a two-year fixed-site experiment. Using traditional tillage as a control, we examined the effects of no-tillage and reduced-tillage conservation practices on soil structure, soil organic matter, and rice yield in southern double-cropping systems. The results showed that conservation tillage had no significant effect on the soil bulk density or porosity at either location. However, the effect of reduced tillage on soil organic matter and macro-aggregate content varied by region. In Leizhou, reduced tillage generally increased the content of soil organic matter and macroaggregates, with the highest increases reaching 48.8% and 17.4%, respectively. In contrast, in Dapu, organic matter decreased slightly, and macroaggregate content showed no significant change. Rice yield responded significantly to different tillage modes. In both Leizhou and Dapu, double-cropping rice yield was the highest under reduced tillage (p<0.05), with the highest increase reaching 12.7% and no tillage slightly higher than traditional tillage. The reduced tillage mode helps mitigate leaching, surface runoff, and the loss of nitrogen and phosphorus due to heavy rainfall in the southern region, and also reduces soil erosion, thereby increasing rice yield. This study indicates that while short-term conservation tillage (2 a) has no significant impact on soil structure, reduced tillage appears to be a more effective practice for enhancing rice yield in southern double-cropping systems. These findings have practical significance for improving paddy field soil fertility and crop yields under different tillage modes in southern China.

Key words: tillage modes, double-cropping rice, soil structure, soil organic matter, rice yield

中图分类号:

S344
X171.3

杜明慧, 李伯欣, 余英德, 陶琳, 范世献, 余敏男, 于晓雯, 邹淑君, 黄德银. 保护性耕作对南方双季稻田土壤性质及产量的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(4): 521-533.

DU Minghui, LI Boxin, YU Yingde, TAO Lin, FAN Shixian, YU Minnan, YU Xiaowen, ZOU Shujun, HUANG Deyin. Effects of Soil Properties and Yield of Double-Cropping Rice in Southern China under Conservation Tillage Mode[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2025, 34(4): 521-533.

图/表 11

参考文献 39

[1]	ADIL M, LU S Q, YAO Z J, et al., 2024. No-tillage enhances soil water storage, grain yield and water use efficiency in dryland wheat (Triticum aestivum) and maize (Zea mays) cropping systems: A global meta-analysis[J]. Functional Plant Biology, 51: FP23267.
[2]	BLANCO-CANQUI H, RUIS S J, 2018. No-tillage and soil physical environment[J]. Geoderma, 326: 164-200.
[3]	CHAVARRIA D N, PEREZ-BRANDAN C, SERRI D L, et al., 2018. Response of soil microbial communities to agroecological versus conventional systems of extensive agriculture[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 264: 1-8.
[4]	CARRETTA L, TAROLLI P, CARDINALI A, et al., 2021. Evaluation of runoff and soil erosion under conventional tillage and no-till management: A case study in northeast Italy[J]. Catena, 197: 104972.
[5]	DEGENS B P, 1997. Macro-aggregation of soils by biological bonding and binding mechanisms and the factors affecting these: A review[J]. Soil Research, 35(3): 431-460.
[6]	DENARDIN L G D O, CARMONA F D C, VELOSO M G, et al., 2019. No-tillage increases irrigated rice yield through soil quality improvement along time[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 186: 64-69.
[7]	FIORINI A, BOSELLI R, MARIS S C, et al., 2020. May conservation tillage enhance soil C and N accumulation without decreasing yield in intensive irrigated croplands? Results from an eight-year maize monoculture[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 296: 106926.
[8]	GOMEZ E, FERRERAS L, TORESANI S, et al., 2001. Changes in some soil properties in a Vertic Argiudoll under short-term conservation till[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 61(3-4): 179-186.
[9]	GICHERU P T, GACHENE C K K, MBUVI J P, 2006. Effects of soil management practices and tillage systems on soil moisture conservation and maize yield on a sandy loam in semiarid Kenya[J]. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 27(3): 77-92.
[10]	HOU X Q, LI R, JIA Z K, et al., 2012. Effects of rotational tillage practices on soil properties, winter wheat yields and water-use efficiency in semi-arid areas of north-west China[J]. Field Crops Research, 129: 7-13.
[11]	HUANG Y W, REN W, WANG L X, et al., 2018. Greenhouse gas emissions and crop yield in no-tillage systems: A meta-analysis[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 268(46): 144-153.
[12]	JABRO J D, IVERSEN W M, STEVENS W B, et al., 2015. Effect of three tillage depths on sugarbeet response and soil penetrability resistance[J]. Agronomy Journal, 107(4): 1481-1488.
[13]	JABRO J D, STEVENS W M, EVANS R G, et al., 2016. Physical and hydraulic properties of a sandy loam soil under zero, shallow and deep tillage practices[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 159: 67-72.
[14]	KAN Z R, VIRK A L, HE C, et al., 2020. Characteristics of carbon mineralization and accumulation under long-term conservation tillage[J]. CATENA, 193: 104636.
[15]	LIU Y, GAO M S, WU W, et al., 2013. The effects of conservation tillage practices on the soil water-holding capacity of a non-irrigated apple orchard in the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 130: 7-12.
[16]	LU X F, HOU E Q, GUO J Y, et al., 2021. Nitrogen addition stimulates soil aggregation and enhances carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems of China: A meta‐analysis[J]. Global Change Biology, 27(12): 2780-2792.
[17]	MOHANTY M, BANDYOPADHYAY K K, PAINULI D K, et al., 2007. Water transmission characteristics of a Vertisol and water use efficiency of rainfed soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) under subsoiling and manuring[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 93(2): 420-428.
[18]	ODUMA O, NNADI D C, AGU C S, et al., 2017. Determination of the effect of tillage on soil resistance to penetration: A study of southeast agricultural soils[J]. American Journal of Engineering Research, 6(7): 1-5.
[19]	STRUDLEY M W, GREEN T R, ASCOUGH J C, 2008. Tillage effects on soil hydraulic properties in space and time: State of the science[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 99(1): 4-48.
[20]	SU Y, GABRIELLE B, MAKOWSKI D, 2021. A global dataset for crop production under conventional tillage and no tillage systems[J]. Scientific Data, 8(1): 33. DOI PMID
[21]	SINGH D, MISHRA A K, PATRA S, et al., 2023. Effect of long-term tillage practices on runoff and soil erosion in sloping croplands of Himalaya, India[J]. Sustainability, 15(10): 8285.
[22]	TORABIAN S, FARHANGI-ABRIZ S, DENTON M D, 2019. Do tillage systems influence nitrogen fixation in legumes? A review[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 185: 113-121.
[23]	WANG X B, WU H J, DAI K, et al., 2012. Tillage and crop residue effects on rainfed wheat and maize production in northern China[J]. Field Crops Research, 132: 106-116.
[24]	WANG Y X, CHEN S P, ZHANG D X, et al., 2020. Effects of subsoiling depth, period interval and combined tillage practice on soil properties and yield in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain, China[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 19(6): 1596-1608.
[25]	WILLIAMS H, COLOMBI T, KELLER T, 2020. The influence of soil management on soil health: An on-farm study in southern Sweden[J]. Geoderma, 360: 114010.
[26]	XUE J F, PU C, LIU S L, et al., 2015. Effects of tillage systems on soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in a double paddy cropping system in southern China[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 153(1): 161-168.
[27]	ZHANG Y J, WANG S L, WANG H, et al., 2018. The effects of rotating conservation tillage with conventional tillage on soil properties and grain yields in winter wheat- spring maize rotations[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 263: 107-117.
[28]	ZHAO X, LIU S L, PU C, et al., 2017. Crop yields under no-till farming in China: A meta-analysis[J]. European Journal of Agronomy, 84: 67-75.
[29]	广东省统计局, 国家统计局广东调查总队, 2023. 广东统计年鉴[M/OL]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, [2023-03-31]. https://www.gd.gov.cn/attachment/0/517/517271/4147108.pdf.
	Guangdong Provincial Statistics Bureau, Guangdong Statistics Survey Office of The National Bureau, 2023. Guangdong statistical yearbook[M/OL]. Beijing: China Statistical Press, [2023-03-31]. https://www.gd.gov.cn/attachment/0/517/517271/4147108.pdf.
[30]	黄龙, 包维楷, 李芳兰, 等, 2021. 土壤结构和植被对土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 27(6): 1725-1731.
	HUANG L, BAO W K, LI F L, et al., 2021. Effects of soil structure and vegetation on microbial communities[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied and Environmental, 27(6): 1725-1731.
[31]	蒋云峰, 屈明秋, 王月, 等, 2016. 不同耕作方式对耕层土壤性质的影响[J]. 吉林师范大学学报(自然科学版), 37(1): 144-146.
	JANG Y F, QU M Q, WANG Y, et al., 2016. Effects of different tillage practices on soil properties in the cultivated layer[J]. Journal of Jilin Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 37(1): 144-146.
[32]	秦猛, 董全中, 薛红, 等, 2023. 我国保护性耕作的研究进展[J]. 河南农业科学, 52(7): 1-11.
	QIN M, DONG Q Z, XUE H, et al., 2023. Research progress of conservation tillage in China[J]. Journal of Henan Agricultural Sciences, 52(7): 1-11. DOI
[33]	尚小龙, 曹建斌, 王艳, 等, 2021. 保护性耕作技术研究现状及展望[J]. 中国农机化学报, 42(6): 191-201. DOI
	SHANG X L, CAO J B, WANG Y, et al., 2023. Current situation and prospect of conservation tillage technology[J]. Journal of Chinese Agricultural Mechanization, 42(6): 191-201.
[34]	王增丽, 2012. 秸秆不同处理还田方式对土壤理化特性和作物生长效应的影响[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学:6.
	WANG Z L, 2012. Effects of different straw incorporation manners on soil physical and chemical properties and crop growth[D]. Yangling: Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University:6.
[35]	中华人民共和国农业部, 2000. 农、畜、水产品污染监测技术规范: NY/T 398—2000[S]. 北京: 中华人民共和国农业部: 1.
	Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China, 2000. Technical specifications for monitoring pollution of agricultural, livestock and aquatic products: NY/T 398—2000[S]. Beijing: Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China: 1.
[36]	中华人民共和国农业农村部, 2006. 土壤检测. 第4部分: 土壤容量的测定: NY/T 1121.4—2006[S]. 北京: 中华人民共和国农业农村部: 1.
	Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, 2006.Soil testing. Part 4: Determination of soil capacity: NY/T 1121.4—2006[S]. Beijing: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China: 1.
[37]	中华人民共和国农业农村部, 2006. 土壤检测. 第6部分: 土壤有机质的测定: NY/T 1121.6—2006[S]. 北京: 中华人民共和国农业农村部: 1.
	Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, 2006. Soil testing.Part 6: Determination of soil organic matter: NY/T 1121.6—2006[S]. Beijing: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China: 1.
[38]	中华人民共和国农业农村部, 2012. 农田土壤环境质量监测技术规范: NY/T 395—2012[S]. 第2版. 北京: 中华人民共和国农业农村部: 1.
	Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, 2012. Technical specification for monitoring the environmental quality of farmland soils: NY/T 395—2012[S]. Second Edition. Beijing: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China: 1.
[39]	郑洪兵, 2018. 耕作方式对土壤环境及玉米生长发育的影响[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳农业大学:4.
	ZHENG H B, 2018. Effects of tillage methods on the soil properties and maize growth[D]. Shenyang: Shenyang Agricultural University:4.

试验区	耕作模式	容重/ (g∙cm⁻³)	有机质质量分数/ (g·kg⁻¹)	孔隙度/ %	>0.25 mm大团聚体质量分数/%
雷州	免耕	1.27a	41.2a	51.9a	51.7a	48.3a
	少耕	1.26a	42.2a	52.6a	53.1a	46.9a
	传统耕作	1.28a	40.3a	51.6a	49.9a	50.1a
大埔	免耕	1.28a	26.1a	51.8a	59.6a	40.4a
	少耕	1.28a	29.5a	51.6a	60.2a	39.8a
	传统耕作	1.29a	28.1a	51.5a	58.9a	41.1a

试验区	耕作模式	容重/ (g∙cm⁻³)	有机质质量分数/ (g·kg⁻¹)	孔隙度/ %	>0.25 mm大团聚体质量分数/%
雷州	免耕	1.27a	41.2a	51.9a	51.7a	48.3a
	少耕	1.26a	42.2a	52.6a	53.1a	46.9a
	传统耕作	1.28a	40.3a	51.6a	49.9a	50.1a
大埔	免耕	1.28a	26.1a	51.8a	59.6a	40.4a
	少耕	1.28a	29.5a	51.6a	60.2a	39.8a
	传统耕作	1.29a	28.1a	51.5a	58.9a	41.1a

年份	耕作模式	>0.25 mm大团聚体质量分数/%		<0.25 mm微团聚体质量分数/%
年份	耕作模式	早稻	晚稻	早稻	晚稻
2019	免耕	46.0±10.4ab	45.8±7.04b	54.0±10.4ab	54.3±7.04a
	少耕	58.5±8.66a	60.6±4.10a	41.5±8.66b	39.4±4.10b
	传统耕作	41.1±5.86b	49.7±7.76b	58.9±5.86a	50.3±7.78a
2020	免耕	47.3±3.27b	45.1±3.42a	52.8±3.27a	54.9±3.37a
	少耕	61.6±6.01a	42.0±3.80a	38.4±6.01b	58.1±3.80a
	传统耕作	56.1±7.28ab	48.8±5.81a	43.9±7.28ab	51.3±5.79a

年份	耕作模式	>0.25 mm大团聚体质量分数/%		<0.25 mm微团聚体质量分数/%
年份	耕作模式	早稻	晚稻	早稻	晚稻
2019	免耕	46.0±10.4ab	45.8±7.04b	54.0±10.4ab	54.3±7.04a
	少耕	58.5±8.66a	60.6±4.10a	41.5±8.66b	39.4±4.10b
	传统耕作	41.1±5.86b	49.7±7.76b	58.9±5.86a	50.3±7.78a
2020	免耕	47.3±3.27b	45.1±3.42a	52.8±3.27a	54.9±3.37a
	少耕	61.6±6.01a	42.0±3.80a	38.4±6.01b	58.1±3.80a
	传统耕作	56.1±7.28ab	48.8±5.81a	43.9±7.28ab	51.3±5.79a

年份	耕作模式	>0.25 mm大团聚体质量分数/%		<0.25 mm微团聚体质量分数/%
年份	耕作模式	早稻	晚稻	早稻	晚稻
2019	免耕	52.5±5.15a	39.8±3.42a	47.6±5.15a	60.3±3.42a
	少耕	43.1±5.68a	40.8±6.04a	56.9±5.68a	59.2±6.04a
	传统耕作	46.9±4.51a	36.1±9.46a	53.1±4.51a	63.9±11.2a
2020	免耕	59.6±5.18a	43.1±1.80a	40.4±5.18a	57.0±1.78a
	少耕	63.8±9.17a	42.9±4.64a	36.6±9.17a	57.2±4.67a
	传统耕作	56.9±3.97a	47.7±2.75a	43.1±3.97a	52.4±2.75a

保护性耕作对南方双季稻田土壤性质及产量的影响

Effects of Soil Properties and Yield of Double-Cropping Rice in Southern China under Conservation Tillage Mode

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 11

参考文献 39

相关文章 2

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

耕作模式	水稻产量
	2019年		2020年
	早稻	晚稻	早稻	晚稻
免耕	5796.0±187b	6631.5±208b	7650.0±309b	6739.5±337ab
少耕	6187.5±220a	6873.0±398a	7950.0±208a	6861.0±291a
传统耕作	5488.5±401c	6177.0±342c	7575.0±310b	6526.5±285b

[1]	李强, 汤秦, 吴锐. 抗生素添加对不同演替阶段岩溶生态系统土壤有机质激发效应的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2024, 33(11): 1717-1726.
[2]	唐海明, 石丽红, 文丽, 程凯凯, 李超, 龙泽东, 肖志武, 李微艳, 郭勇. 长期施肥对双季稻田根际土壤氮素的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(3): 492-499.

耕作模式	水稻产量/(kg·hm⁻²)
	2019年		2020年
	早稻	晚稻	早稻	晚稻
免耕	6315.0±124b	5949.0±220b	7311.0±253b	5799.0±197b
少耕	6658.5±248a	6349.5±252a	7698.0±193a	6049.5±234a
传统耕作	6258.0±162b	5976.0±204b	7276.5±232b	5676.0±239b

耕作模式	水稻产量/(kg·hm⁻²)
	2019年		2020年
	早稻	晚稻	早稻	晚稻
免耕	6315.0±124b	5949.0±220b	7311.0±253b	5799.0±197b
少耕	6658.5±248a	6349.5±252a	7698.0±193a	6049.5±234a
传统耕作	6258.0±162b	5976.0±204b	7276.5±232b	5676.0±239b