Persian Gulf Crop Protection
Available online on: www.cropprotection.ir
ISSN: 2251-9343 (Online)
Volume 2 Issue 2, June 2013
Pages 1-7
Ecological and Biological Effects of Fish Farming in Rice Fields
Seyyed Ali Noorhosseini-Niyaki1* and Forouzan Bagherzadeh-Lakani2
1-Department of Agronomy, Lahijan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran
(*Corresponding author e-mail: [email protected]).
2- Department of Fisheries, Faculty of Natural Resources, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
Abstract: A wide studies and researches showed that fish farming in rice field in addition to socio-economic
benefits have numerous biological and ecological effects in advanced and developing countries. This study was
accomplished with target scrutiny effects and ecological and biological benefits of fish farming in rice field based.
Results showed that important effects and benefits of ecological and biological of fish farming in rice field are
weeds control, Effective pest control, conservation and increasing soil fertility, environmental protection and
improved status of environmental, biological pollution reduction, environmental sustainability and community
health benefits. The effects of fish on rice including the effects on content of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium,
chlorophyll content, leaf area expansion, roots network activity, the accumulation of dry material in rice plant. In
general, it is expressed such that fish farming in rice field more food to enter the cycle and it had positive
beneficial effects on the life cycle. According to present investigation, it is suggested that for ecological and
biological sustainability should promote more such useful and effective technology.
Key Words: Fish farming, Rice field, Ecological effects, Biological effects.
Persian Gulf Crop Protection, 2(2): 1-7
1
Introduction
Fish culture in the paddy fields, taking the
potential facilities available in the paddy is
a straight forward and low cost activity and
if it is performed in a systematic and
technical way, in addition to the production
of the great amount of fish in the paddy
field, it will have positive and useful
effects. So far, wide research has been
performed on the benefits of this kind of
culturing in the development countries a
few years ago among them international
development research centers of Canada,
Sweden, America and Denmark could be
referred where about 2 million dollars has
been invested on the integrated rice-fish
farming in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia,
Thailand, Vietnam, Philippine and china
(Momen-Nia, 2002). Results of all these
research indicated that integrated rice-fish
farming provides great economic, social
and environmental benefits. Integrated
rice-fish farming and promoting the
aquaculture and double usage of
agricultural
water
resources
and
consumption of aquatics in rural areas, in
addition to greater availability of health ,
useful protein for villagers through
production of fish. Integrated rice-fish
farming provides benefits such as
economic , optimum and double utilization
of paddy field (Hosseini-Kheshtmasjedi,
2008), where it is possible to produce fish
and rice simultaneously without supplying
any excess fertilizer, food and water and
rice yield also will increase. Grass carp by
feeding on the plants such as Azolla
improves the rice growth. These plants
prevent the exchange of oxygen between
the water and weather, and they use the
water mineral also. When these plants die,
they deposit on the bed and cause the field
bed being muddy (Bakhshzad-Mahmoudi,
1997). Also, by feeding on Azolla and
other weed plants, fish limit the excessive
expansion of Azolla in the paddy fields
(Noorhosseini and Bagherzadeh, 2012;
Iranian Fisheries, 2002). Excretions of fish
could be considered as a good source of
Persian Gulf Crop Protection, 2(2): 1-7
fertilizer for the rice. Additive effect of
fish culture on rice production is 5-15 %
(due to excretions of fish), where fish by
feeding and then excreting and depositing
their feces in the settled soil of the field
bed, recycle the available nutrients and
cause increase of elements such as the soil
phosphorous and nitrogen taking the
disturbance of soil beneath the plots. Study
results indicate that absorption of
important nutrients such as phosphorous
and nitrogen by rice plant has improved
significantly compared to single – culture
system of rice. By feeding on the deposit
materials in field bed, carp fish disturbs the
bed and elements such as phosphorous and
nitrogen is reentered to the water cycle and
increase the water productivity power.
Totally, decreasing the consumption of
chemical fertilizer in paddy fields through
utilizing the fish feces is important in the
field soil productivity (BakhshzadMahmoudi, 1997; Frei and Becker, 2005b).
Fish culture in the paddy field leads to
biologic fighting against the pests, disease
and weeds (Hosseini-Kheshtmasjedi, 2008;
Frei and Becker, 2005b). Besides, insects
larva, worms, weeds, etc. the natural food
of fish lead to the growth and development
of fish (Bakhshzad-Mahmoudi, 1997).
Decreasing the environmental pollution
due to decrease in lower consumption of
toxins and chemical fertilizers are among
the desirable effects of the mentioned
subjects (Hosseini-Kheshtmasjedi, 2008).
In the present study, we will discuss on
some of the mentioned social and
environmental effects and benefits.
Protection
and
productivity of the soil
increased
Since fish in the paddy fields benefit from
various nutrition's their excreted materials
directly enrich the soil and water, thus,
simultaneously productivity of paddy
fields is guaranteed. Such that dry feces of
grass carp contain 1.02% nitrogen and
0.426% phosphorous. Thus, paddy fields
where fish culture is performed generally
2
have higher productivity compared to the
paddy fields without fish. Additionally,
productivity of this kind of fields will
decrease slowly. While the paddy fields
without fish will lose their productivity
more rapidly after harvesting of rice yield.
Accordingly, subsequent cultivation yield
in the combined culture fields has both
higher production and quality. Presence of
fish in the paddy fields of their permanent
searching for food increases the water
dissolved oxygen concentration through
mixing and so, perpetration of oxygen in
the paddy field bed soil will increase and
thus, soil qualitative status will improve.
As well movement and searching by fish in
paddy field bed will rotate the surface soil,
thus, soil ventilation improves and
minerals decomposition increase. In
addition, aggregation of noxious and toxic
gas like NH3 and H2S decreases. Fish in
the paddy field are able to convert soil
insoluble nitrogen to the soluble state, thus
soil productivity increases significantly.
Chinese agricultural regional institute in
Li-Xia-He region demonstrated during
some examinations that productivity of
paddy fields under the integrated rice-fish
farming improved significantly. This was
also approved by Sunming agricultural
research institute in Fujian province, china.
As well, movement of fish in the paddy
field altered the soil physical properties
such as providing suitable conditions of
soil aeration, thus improving the soil
structure. During the production season in
the combined culturing, fish raise the pores
of soil by constant in paddy field bed
(Noorhosseini and Bagherzadeh, 2012;
Iranian Fisheries, 2002).
Oxidation
recovery
potential
and
soil
Ecosystem of combined cultivation of fish
and rice provides the condition where both
crops i.e. the rice and fish benefit.
Movement of fish in shallow waters of
paddy fields destroys the surface thin layer
Created by microorganisms in surface soil.
Persian Gulf Crop Protection, 2(2): 1-7
This increased the dissolved oxygen rate in
the soil and raises the oxidation potential
and recovery of paddy field soil the grow
period dramatically. Such changes improve
the soil oxygen content and the intensity of
the use of nutrients hidden in the soil of the
system (Noorhosseini and Bagherzadeh,
2012; Iranian Fisheries, 2002).
Greenhouse gas scattering
Fish culturing increase the tendency to
scatter methane. This tendency is to the
situations such as increase release of
methane trapped in the soil and decrease in
the flood oxygen leading to the appearance
of anaerobic property of the soil (Frei and
Becker, 2005c). Similarly in another study
also it was approved that fish culturing in
paddy fields increase the methane
scattering. In contrast, fish culturing
decrease N2O scatters. Fish mobility and
its biologic cycles along with increased
amount of methane and carbon organic
dissolved contents and decreased amount
of insoluble oxygen could be the reason for
dispersion of high amounts of methane
from integrated fish-rice farming plots.
While high rates of insoluble oxygen may
affect on more release of N2O from rice
single – culturing system. Total amount of
green house gas dispersion with a focus on
potential carbon dioxide in the earth
warming potential is significantly higher in
combined culturing plots. In addition,
oxygen rate in respect of methane
scattering was negative but it was positive
in respect of oxidation - reduction potential
(Datta et al., 2009). Also, Frei and Becker
(2005b) in their reviews on the research
performed on this subject concluded that
integrated fish-rice farming system
generally and significantly increase the
greenhouse gas particularly methane.
Social health benefits
In paddy fields, there are great number of
photogenes in relation to the disease such
as malaria, filariasis and encephalitis
which they will decrease using fingerlings
of common carp and grass crop. Also, it
3
was reported that concentration of
mosquito larva is decreasing in china
paddy fields under the integrated fish-rice
farming (Iranian Fisheries, 2002). In
addition, Fernand and Halwart (2000)
write that fish culturing could prevent the
expansion of malaria and various species
of mosquito population. Similar effect was
reported by Lee and Lee (2003) from a
field study on Muddy loach (Misgrumus
mizolepsis), a little, fresh water fish. Neng
et al, (1995) had similar experiences by
introducing other species of crap to the
paddy fields of china. Thus, it is
completely obvious that plenty of social
health benefits will be achieved for human
societies through expansion of combined
culturing of fish in pay fields.
Effects of fish culturing on the rice
plant
Contents of nitrogen, phosphorous,
potassium of leaf and stalks in the rice
plants cultivated along with fish culturing
is higher than rice plants in the rice
monoculture. It is believed that fish cause
better distribution, thus more efficient
usage of above mentioned nutrients by rice
plants under the integrated fish-rice
farming. Chlorophyll content of the fields
under the combined culturing is
significantly higher than monoculture rice
fields in all the growth stages. High
chlorophyll content of the rice plant under
the combined culturing demonstrates that
photosynthetic processes in the plants of
these fields have very higher efficiency
compared to the fields without fish. It was
due to presence of fish and higher
efficiency of photosynthetic process causes
that great amount of carbohydrate is saved
in the rice. Leaf area index in the fields
under the integrated fish-rice farming in
the early stages of growth, flowering stage
and panicle emergence stage is higher than
leaf area index in monoculture system. In
the rice plants the activity of root network
is expressed by the water volume passing
through a cut part of plant in the unit of
Persian Gulf Crop Protection, 2(2): 1-7
time. Rice plants root system in integrated
fish-rice farming fields has more intense
activity compared to the rice plant roots in
rice monoculture system in all the growth
stages. More intense activity means that
root networks are able to absorb more
nutrients from the soil. Tillering of rice
plant in early growth stages is most
important step in production of efficient
panicles. The number of panicle and
panicle emergence stage time greatly
depends on the amount of nutrients used by
rice plant. Rice plants under integrated
fish-rice farming have more efficient
tillering and panicles ratio in each plant
compared to the rice plants in singleculturing system. The reason is that fish
present across the combined field increase
the fertilizer efficiency and improves the
nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium
distribution thus, rice plant more efficiency
use these materials in tillering. The
contents of nitrogen, phosphorous and
potassium, expansion of leaf area,
chlorophyll content of rice plant and root
grid activity in combined fields were
always higher than single-culturing paddy
fields. Difference - in the above mentioned
factors are also expressed totally as
aggregation of dry matters. Aggregation of
dry matters is a fundamental and important
factor to increase the function of rice yield
(Noorhosseini and Bagherzadeh, 2012;
Iranian Fisheries, 2002).
Biologic control of weeds
Lightfoot et al (1992) concluded that weed
biomass decrease could be led to the
decreased competition to achieve foods
and therefore food availability for rice
plan. 39% decrease of weed biomass due
to presence of common carp fries
(Cyprimus carpis) was approved by a
study (1995) in India. Rothuis et al (1999)
reported up to 100% decrease in immersed
and floating weeds readily available for
fish. Frei and Becker (2005a) referred to
the full removal of filamentous algae in the
rice plots due to feeding of Nile tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus L.) and common
4
carp (Cyprimus carpis). In low densities of
fish, effect of weed control by fishing may
be low, as a field experiment by Piepho
and Alkämper (1991) indicated. However
in this stuffy there was only 60 to 200 fish
/ ha1.
It seems that the effect of weed control
depends on nutritional properties of
specific species of cultures fish. A Study
performed on nutritional ecology of fish in
paddy fields by Chapman and Fernando
(1994) approved the presence of grass
weed seeds in the diets of Nile tilapia and
common carp. Fish species feeding on
large weeds such as silver barb may
damage rice plants. As the fish don’t feed
on the grass weeds but they also feed on
the leafy parts of rice plant (Frei and
Becker, 2005b).
Biologic control of pests
Carps released in paddy fields, feed on
larva, stem and leaf feeding worms. This
leads to the growth of fish and biological
control of rice pest population (MomenNia, 2002). Fernando (1993) state that’s
that for many species of fish feed party of
aquatic organisms. It is supposed that they
may play a role as biologic controls in the
paddy fields. In addition, studies have been
performed on evaluating the possibility of
controlling the pest in Insects population
and other pests of rice plant by fish
culturing. Vromant et al. (1998) indicated
a controlling influence of pests on the
control of a kind of silk worm population.
While there was no significant effect of
crickets and grasshoppers in the
subsequent studies of Vromant et al.
(2002). While, Sinhababu and Majumdar
(1981) by studding and analyzing the
intestine contents indicated that common
carp feeds on Nilaparvata lugens. Effect of
fish on the invasion of Pomacea
canaliculata eas studied by Halwart (1994)
and Ichinose et al (2002). This study
concluded that Pomacea canaliculata can
be removed from paddy fields during a 2
years period of common carp production.
According to the studies of Naylor (1996),
Persian Gulf Crop Protection, 2(2): 1-7
this is highly related to the fact that
Pomacea canaliculata has became one of
most serious pests of rice plant in the Asia
since its invasion in 80 the and continues
its economic loss. In general, common carp
is becoming an omnivorous organism and
it seems it is one of most promising species
to control the insects and snails. Waibel
(1992) also found that the capacity of fish
to control the pests may permit to decrease
the usage of plant supporting chemicals.
Farmers will be obliged to decrease the
consumption of pesticides due to the fact
that many recent compounds used for fish
are toxic, or may be gathered inside the
fish tissue. Wilson and Tisdell (2002) also
state that if live fish could play the role of
multiple pest chemical controls, this is
naturally a step forward. It is believed that
current rates of pesticides in the rice
production are not sustainable both
economically and ecologically.
Conclusions
Generally, in this study important effects
and benefits of ecological and biological of
fish farming in rice field were weeds
control, effective pest control, conservation
and increasing soil fertility, environmental
protection and improved status of
environmental,
biological
pollution
reduction, environmental sustainability and
community health benefits and also the
effects of fish on rice including the effects
on content of nitrogen, phosphorus,
potassium, chlorophyll content, leaf area
expansion, roots network activity, the
accumulation of dry material in rice plant.
In general, it is expressed such that fish
farming in rice field more food to enter the
cycle and it had positive beneficial effects
on the life cycle. According to present
investigation, it is suggested that for
ecological and biological sustainability
should promote more such useful and
effective technology.
References
[1]
Bakhshzad-Mahmoudi,
A.
1997.
Integrated fish and rice culture. Master's
thesis of Fisheries, Islamic Azad
5
University, Lahijan Branch, Lahijan,
Iran.
[2] Chapman, G. and Fernando, C. H. 1994.
The diets and related aspects of feeding
of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)
and common carp (Cyprinus carpio) in
lowland rice fields in northeast
Thailand. Aquaculture, 123: 281–307.
[3] Datta, A., Nayak, D. R., Sinhababu, D.
P. and Adhya, T. K. 2009. Methane and
nitrous oxide emissions from an
integrated rain fed rice–fish farming
system of Eastern India. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 129: 228–
237.
[4] Fernando, C. H. 1993. Rice field
ecology and fish culture — an overview.
Hydrobiologia, 259: 91–113.
[5] Fernando, C. H. and Halwart, M. 2000.
Possibilities for the integration of fish
farming
into
irrigation systems.
Fisheries Management and Ecology, 7:
45–54.
[6] Frei, M. and Becker, K. 2005a. A
greenhouse experiment on growth and
yield effects in integrated rice–fish
culture. Aquaculture, 244: 119– 128.
[7] Frei, M. and Becker, K. 2005b.
Integrated rice-fish culture: Coupled
production saves resources. Natural
Resources Forum, 29: 135–143.
[8] Frei, M. and Becker, K. 2005c.
Integrated rice–fish production and
methane emission under greenhouse
conditions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 107: 51–56.
[9] Halwart, M. 1994. Fish as biological
control agents in rice: The potential of
common carp Cyprinus carpio L. and
Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (L.).
PhD Thesis. University of Hohenheim,
Hohenheim, Germany.
[10] Hosseini-Kheshtmasjedi, S. H. 2008.
Project integrated fish and rice culture in
rice field. Journal of Cultivation,
livestock and industrial, 107: 18-19
[11] Ichinose, K., Tochihara, M., Wada, T.,
Suguiura, N. and Yusa, Y. 2002. Effect
of common carp on apple snail in a rice
field evaluated by a predator-prey
logistic model. International Journal of
Pest Management, 48(2): 133–138.
Persian Gulf Crop Protection, 2(2): 1-7
[12] Iranian Fisheries. 2002. Identification of
potential fish farming in rice fields of
Guilan province, Iranian Fisheries
Company, Ministry of Jihad Agriculture,
Iran
[13] Lee, D. K. and Lee, W. J. 2003.
Biological control of mosquito larvae by
using
indigenous
fish
predator,
Misgurnus mizolepis in Republic of
Korea. Abstract book of the 52nd annual
meeting of the American Society of
Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 3 to 7
December, Philadelphia.
[14] Lightfoot, C., Van Dam, A. and CostaPierce, B. 1992. What’s happening to
rice yields in rice-fish systems? In: de la
Cruz, C. R., Lightfoot, C., Costa-Pierce,
B. A., Carangal, V. R., Bimbao, M. P.
(Eds.),
Rice-Fish
Research
and
Development in Asia. Proceedings of
ICLARM conference. The International
Center for Living Aquatic Resources
Management (ICLARM), Makati City,
Metro Manila, Philippines. 177–184.
[15] Momen-Nia, M. 2002. Management of
fish farming in rice field. Aquaculture
Magazine Yearbook. Iranian Fisheries
Organization, 10: 27-43
[16] Naylor, R. 1996. Invasions in
Agriculture: Assessing the cost of the
Golden Apple Snail in Asia. Ambio,
25(7): 443–448.
[17] Neng, W., Guohou, L. and Gemei, Z.
1995. The role of fish in controlling
mosquitoes in rice fields. In: MacKay,
T. K. (Ed.), Rice-Fish Culture in China.
International Development Research
Centre (IDRC), Ottawa.
[18] Noorhosseini, S. A. and Bagherzadeh, F.
2012. Ecology of Integrated Rice-Fish
Farming, Haghshenass Publication,
104p.
[19] Piepho, H. P. and Alkämper, J., 1991.
Effects of integrated rice-cum-fish
culture and water regime on weed
growth and development in irrigated
lowland rice fields of Northeast
Thailand. Journal of Agronomy and
Crop Sciences, 166: 289–299.
[20] Rothuis, A. J., Vromant, N., Xuan, V.
T., Richter, C. J. J. and Ollevier, F.
1999. The effect of rice seeding rate on
rice and fish production, and weed
6
abundance in direct-seeded rice–fish
culture. Aquaculture. 172: 255–274.
[21] Sinhababu, D. P. and Majumdar, N.
1981. Evidence of feeding on brown
plant hopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stall)
by common carp, Cyprinus carpio, var
communis L. Journal of the Inland
Fisheries, Society of India. 13(2): 16–
21.
[22] Vromant, N., Nhan, D. K., Chau, N. T.
H. and Ollevier, F. 2002. Can fish
control planthopper and leafhopper
populations in intensive rice culture?
Biocontrol Science and Technology,
12(6): 695–703.
[23] Vromant, N., Rothuis, A. J., Cuc, N. T.
T. and Ollevier, F. 1998. The effect of
fish on the abundance of the rice
caseworm
Nymphula
depunctalis
Persian Gulf Crop Protection, 2(2): 1-7
(Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in
direct seeded, concurrent rice fish1
fields.
Biocontrol
Science
and
Technology, 8: 539–546.
[24] Waibel,
H.
1992.
Comparative
economics of pesticide use in rice. In: de
la Cruz, C. R., Lightfoot, C., CostaPierce, B. A., Carangal, V. R., Bimbao,
M. P. (Eds.), Rice-Fish Research and
Development in Asia. Proceedings of
ICLARM conference. The International
Center for Living Aquatic Resources
Management (ICLARM), Makati City,
Metro Manila, Philippines. 245–254.
[25] Wilson, C. and Tisdell, C. 2002. Why
farmers continue to use pesticides
despite environmental, health and
sustainability
costs.
Ecological
Economics, 39: 449–462.
7