江苏省沉海圩乡村湿地水稻田种植模式转变后的生态恢复效果

罗祖奎; 李扬; 徐曦; 屈铭志; 马进; 孙文; 黄舒欣; 仝慧林

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-5641.201931009

江苏省沉海圩乡村湿地水稻田种植模式转变后的生态恢复效果

doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5641.201931009

1.
凯里学院大健康学院，贵州凯里　556011
2.
雷公山国家级自然保护区管理局，贵州雷山　557100
3.
上海聚隆生态保护技术研究中心，上海　200090

基金项目: 国家自然科学基金(31960231); 贵州省科技厅、黔东南州科技局、凯里学院科技合作协议项目(黔科合LH字[2015]7755); 上海道融自然保护与可持续发展中心资助; 凯里学院校级重点课题(Z1301); 凯里学院高层次人才深度研究专项课题(GCC201802)

详细信息

作者简介:
罗祖奎，男，教授，研究方向为湿地生态学. E-mail：luozukui@126.com

中图分类号: Q959.7；Q958.1
计量
- 文章访问数: 355
- HTML全文浏览量: 202
- PDF下载量: 9
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2019-07-11
- 网络出版日期: 2020-07-20
- 刊出日期: 2020-07-20

Ecological restoration effect of paddy fields after rice planting pattern transformation in the rural wetlands of Chenhaiwei, Jiangsu Province

1.
School of Sports and Health Science, Kaili University, Kaili, Guizhou　556011, China
2.
Bureau of Leigongshan National Nature Reserve, Leishan, Guizhou　557100, China
3.
Shanghai Julong Eco-protection Technology Research Center, Shanghai　200090, China

摘要

摘要: 为了检验沉海圩乡村湿地传统稻田转化为生态稻田之后的生态恢复效果, 在2018年7月—2019年5月对景观湖泊、生态稻田、传统稻田和居民区河道四类湿地的两栖类、底栖动物和水质进行野外调查及实验室处理. 结果表明: ①两栖类种类在景观湖泊、生态稻田、传统稻田和居民区河道依次减少; 两栖类数量在景观湖泊和生态稻田之间无显著差异, 但两者的数量均显著高于传统稻田和居民区河道. ②底栖动物种类和数量在稻田潮湿季节四类湿地之间均无显著差异; 但在稻田干旱季节生态稻田均处于最低水平. ③生态稻田水质的有机氮和磷的指标在四类湿地中处于中等水平, 但叶绿素a浓度最低. 总体而言, 沉海圩稻田种植模式转变后生态恢复效果在一定程度上得到了提高, 但缺乏科学管理不利于物种稳定, 针对生态稻田管理提出了建议.
- 物种多样性 /
- 水质 /
- 生态稻田 /
- 生态恢复 /
- 生态管理
Abstract: In this paper, we evaluated the ecological restoration effect of transforming traditional paddy fields into ecological paddy fields in the rural wetlands of Chenhaiwei. To achieve this objective, we conducted field investigations and laboratory observations, from July 2018 to May 2019, of amphibians, benthic animals, and the water quality at a landscape lake, ecological paddy field, traditional paddy field, and residential ditch. The results showed that: ①Amphibian species decreased sequentially from the landscape lake, ecological paddy field, traditional paddy field, and residential ditch. There was not a significant difference in the number of amphibians observed between the landscape lake and the ecological paddy field, but the number of amphibians was significantly higher than those observed at the traditional paddy field and residential ditch. ②There were no significant differences in the types and numbers of benthic species among the four types of habitats in the wet season, but the ecological paddy field showed the least variety and quantity of benthic species in the dry season. ③The water quality indices of organic nitrogen and phosphorus from the ecological paddy field ranked in the middle among the four habitats, but chlorophyll-a concentration was the lowest. In general, ecological recovery improved to a certain extent after transforming the planting pattern of the rice field at Chenhaiwei, but the lack of scientific management is not conducive to species stability. We put forward suggestions for ecological management of paddy fields.
- species diversity /
- water quality /
- ecological rice paddy field /
- ecological restoration /
- ecological management

HTML全文

图 1 沉海圩乡村湿地生境图

Fig. 1 Map of habitat in rural wetlands of Chenhaiwei

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 四类生境两栖类种类和数量差异性

注: 两栖类数量的数据经过log₂(x+1)转换

Fig. 2 Amphibian differences in richness and abundance in the four habitats

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 沉海圩四种湿地生境两栖类名录及数量平均值(只/样线; n = 20)

Tab. 1 Amphibian list and individuals per line transect (n = 20) in the four wetland habitats at Chenhaiwei

科、种名	生态稻田	传统稻田	景观湖泊	居民区河道
(一) 蟾蜍科 Bufonidae
1. 中华蟾蜍 Bufo gargarizans	0.25 ± 0.72	1.45 ± 2.16	1.95 ± 2.59	0.75 ± 1.45
(二) 蛙科 Ranidae
2. 弹琴水蛙Hylarana adenopleura	0	0	0.20 ± 0.52	0
3. 黑斑侧褶蛙Pelophylax nigromaculata	2.50 ± 2.24	0.65 ± 1.69	1.70 ± 1.72	0.15 ± 0.37
4. 湖北侧褶蛙P. hubeiensis	0	0	0.15 ± 0.37	0
5. 金线侧褶蛙P. plancyiplancyi	0.10 ± 0.31	0.10 ± 0.45	0.35 ± 0.81	0
6. 泽陆蛙 Fejervarya limnocharis	21.05 ± 22.64	13.95 ± 23.81	21.70 ± 34.74	1.95 ± 1.32
7. 虎纹蛙 Hoplobatrachus rugulosus	0	0	0.05 ± 0.22	0
注: n 为样线条数

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 四类生境泥块中底栖动物种类、数量和干重差异

Tab. 2 Differences in richness, abundance and dry weight of benthos in the four habitats

	11月(稻田潮湿)			4月(稻田干旱)
	种类/种	数量/个	干重/g	种类/种	数量^A/个	干重^B/g
生态稻田	2.60 ± 3.17	13.50 ± 22.61	18.34 ± 46.72	0.86 ± 1.46	0.86 ± 1.52	0.16 ± 0.27
传统稻田	0.50 ± 1.27	2.10 ± 4.72	0.16 ± 0.46	1.43 ± 2.15	1.24 ± 1.39	0.64 ± 0.79
景观湖泊	3.00 ± 2.00	25.67 ± 39.27	71.81 ± 87.55	2.06 ± 1.53	4.12 ± 2.19	5.20 ± 2.78
居民区河道	1.80 ± 2.15	11.70 ± 15.90	17.39 ± 28.00	3.35 ± 3.26	2.88 ± 1.37	3.09 ± 1.86
差异性p值	p = 0.098	p = 0.152	p = 0.019*	p = 0.023*	p < 0.001*	p < 0.001*
注: *表示 p 值差异显著; 上标 A 和 B 分别表示该列数据经过 log₂(x+1) 和 x^1/3 转换

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 沉海圩四类生境水质特征参数及差异性

Tab. 3 Characteristic parameters and differences of water quality in the four habitats at Chenhaiwei

	pH值	ORP/ mV	TURB^A/ ntu	NH₃-N^B/ (mg·L^–1)	NO₂-N / (mg·L^–1)	NO₃-N / (mg·L^–1)	Chl-a^C/ (μg·L^–1)	DO/ (mg·L^–1)	TP^D/ (mg·L^–1)	COD_Mn^E/ (mg·L^–1)
生态稻田	8.91 ± 0.13^a	173.67 ± 52.32	1.14 ± 0.41	–1.42 ± 1.86	0.02 ± 0.03	0.54 ± 0.50	3.08 ± 0.83^b	16.65 ± 2.64^a	–3.44 ± 1.12^ab	4.18 ± 0.33^a
传统稻田	8.22 ± 0.44^b	188.67 ± 40.56	1.22 ± 0.04	–1.51 ± 1.21	0.02 ± 0.01	0.67 ± 0.28	3.10 ± 0.51^b	16.04 ± 3.39^a	–2.03 ± 0.60^a	3.56 ± 0.38^b
景观湖泊	8.34 ± 0.50^b	197.47 ± 38.00	1.05 ± 0.25	–2.92 ± 1.54	0.01 ± 0.01	0.38 ± 0.53	3.19 ± 1.27^b	7.15 ± 2.86^b	–4.37 ± 1.09^b	3.23 ± 0.31^b
居民区河道	8.27 ± 0.39^b	191.65 ± 39.92	1.18 ± 0.28	–1.73 ± 1.98	0.04 ± 0.06	0.65 ± 0.77	4.20 ± 1.23^a	6.90 ± 3.12^b	–3.84 ± 1.41^b	3.26 ± 0.41^b
差异性 p值	0.005 *	0.682	0.413	0.140	0.013*	0.273	0.005 *	< 0.001 *	0.004 *	< 0.001 *
注: 上标字母 A、B、C、D、E 分别表示该列数据经过 log₁₀(x+1)、log₂x、log₂(x+1)、log₂x 和 (x+1)^1/3 转换; 数值的上标字母 a 和 b 表示差异程度; * 表示 p 值差异显著

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(30)

[1]	WESTPHAL C, VIDAL S, HORGAN F G, et al. Promoting multiple ecosystem services with flower strips and participatory approaches in rice production landscapes [J]. Basic and Applied Ecology, 2015, 16(8): 681-689. DOI: 10.1016/j.baae.2015.10.004.
[2]	WOOD S A, KARP D S, DECLERCK F, et al. Functional traits in agriculture: Agrobiodiversity and ecosystem services [J]. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2015, 30(9): 531-539. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2015.06.013.
[3]	王磊, 李刚, 席运官, 等. 有机种植方式对稻田动物多样性的影响: 以句容戴庄为例 [J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2018, 34(7): 614-621. DOI: 10.11934/j.issn.1673-4831.2018.07.006.
[4]	GABA S, LESCOURRET F, BOUDSOCQ S, et al. Multiple cropping systems as drivers for providing multiple ecosystem services: From concepts to design [J]. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2015, 35(2): 607-623. DOI: 10.1007/s13593-014-0272-z.
[5]	GURR G M, LU Z, ZHENG X, et al. Multi-country evidence that crop diversification promotes ecological intensification of agriculture [J]. Nature Plants, 2016(2): 1-4. DOI: 10.1038/nplants.2016.14.
[6]	HORGAN F G, RAMAL A F, BERNAL C C, et al. Applying ecological engineering for sustainable and resilient rice production systems [J]. Procedia Food Science, 2016(6): 7-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.profoo.2016.02.002.
[7]	PHALAN B, ONIAL M, BALMFORD A, et al. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: Land sharing and land sparing compared [J]. Science, 2011, 333(6047): 1289-1291. DOI: 10.1126/science.1208742.
[8]	VU Q, RAMAL A F, VILLEGAS J M, et al. Enhancing the parasitism of insect herbivores through diversification of habitat in Philippine rice fields [J]. Paddy and Water Environment, 2018, 16(2): 379-390. DOI: 10.1007/s10333-018-0662-y.
[9]	魏波. 从生态系统角度谈水稻田病虫害的综合防治 [J]. 中国科技财富, 2009(2): 121. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-461X.2009.02.107.
[10]	HORGAN F G, RAMAL A F, VILLEGAS J M, et al. Ecological engineering with high diversity vegetation patches enhances bird activity and ecosystem services in Philippine rice fields [J]. Regional Environmental Change, 2017, 17(5): 1355-1367. DOI: 10.1007/s10113-016-0984-5.
[11]	王凯学, 张清泉, 陈丽丽, 等. 生态稻田及常规稻田节肢动物群落结构特征的比较研究 [J]. 植物保护, 2013, 39(3): 31-35. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.0529-1542.2013.03.007.
[12]	张丹, 成升魁, 杨海龙, 等. 传统农业区稻田多个物种共存对病虫草害的生态控制效应—以贵州省从江县为例 [J]. 资源科学, 2011, 33(6): 1032-1037. DOI: CNKI: SUN: TRZY.0.2011-06-005.
[13]	谢汉宾, 莫英敏, 张姚, 等. 以水鸟保育为目标的水稻田构建技术及效果评估 [J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2017, 26(11): 1919-1927. DOI: 10.11870/cjlyzyyhj201711021.
[14]	张秀菊, 龙媚, 闻振东, 等. 常熟市水生态补偿现状及问题探讨 [J]. 人民长江, 2017, 48(10): 13-17. DOI: 10.16232/j.cnki.1001-4179.2017.10.004.
[15]	苏永春, 勾影波, 郁达, 等. 江苏常熟虞山土壤动物群落多样性研究 [J]. 生物多样性, 2004, 12(3): 333-338. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1005-0094.2004.03.005.
[16]	齐钟彦, 马绣同. 中国动物图谱(软体动物, 第4册) [M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1985.
[17]	刘文亮, 何文珊. 长江河口大型底栖无脊椎动物 [M]. 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 2007.
[18]	霍元子, 何文辉, 罗坤, 等. 大型溞引导的沉水植被生态修复对滴水湖水质的净化效果 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2010, 21(2): 495-499. DOI: 1001-9332(2010)02-0495-05.
[19]	MALTCHIK L, STENERT C, BATZER D P, et al. Can rice field management practices contribute to the conservation of species from natural wetlands? Lessons from Brazil [J]. Basic and Applied Ecology, 2017(18): 50-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.baae.2016.10.002.
[20]	梁国付, 李成蹊, 白鑫, 等. 农业景观中环境因素对两栖类生物分布的影响 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(1): 301-308. DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201901.008.
[21]	吴迪, 岳峰, 罗祖奎, 等. 上海大莲湖湖泊湿地两栖动物群落分布及生境选择模式 [J]. 复旦学报(自然科学版), 2011, 50(3): 268-273. DOI: 10.1007/s11783-010-0264-4.
[22]	林兰稳, 钟继洪, 谭军, 等. 土地利用方式对土壤动物多样性的影响 [J]. 生态环境学报, 2012, 21(10): 1678-1682. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5906.2012.10.008.
[23]	罗祖奎, 李扬. 钳嘴鹳觅食生境选择及食物特征分析 [J]. 西北师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 55(4): 1-8. DOI: 10.16783/j.cnki.nwnuz.2019.04.014.
[24]	刘均玲, 袁超, 何永姑, 等. 东寨港红树林小型底栖动物丰度与Chla、有机质的相关性 [J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(1): 189-195. DOI: 10.5846/stxb201711262113.
[25]	郭莹, 王一明, 巫攀, 等. 长期施用粪肥对水稻土中微生物群落功能多样性的影响 [J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2019, 25(3): 593-602. DOI: 10.19675/j.cnki.1006-687x.2018.09028.
[26]	XING G, CAO Y, SHI S, et al. N pollution sources and denitrification in waterbodies in Taihu Lake region [J]. Science China Chemistry, 2001, 44(3): 304-314. DOI: 10.1007/BF02879621.
[27]	熊正琴, 邢光熹, 沈光裕, 等. 太湖地区湖、河和井水中氮污染状况的研究 [J]. 农村生态环境, 2002, 18(2): 29-33. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-4831.2002.02.007.
[28]	谢迎新, 邢光熹, 熊正琴, 等. 常熟地区河湖水体的氮污染源研究 [J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2006, 25(3): 766-771. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1672-2043.2006.03.044.
[29]	孙菲, 袁鹏, 程建光, 等. 宜兴市殷村港叶绿素a与影响因子的多元分析 [J]. 环境工程, 2017, 35(9): 53-57. DOI: 10.13205/j.higc.201709011.
[30]	于婷婷, 徐奎栋. 长江口及邻近海域秋冬季小型底栖动物类群组成与分布 [J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(15): 4556-4566. DOI: 10.5846/stxb201204280613.