Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:41:52.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring the potential for sustainable weed control with integrated rice−fish culture for smallholder irrigated rice agriculture in the Maranhão Lowlands of Amazonia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2011

Aurea Maria Barbosa de Sousa ,
Raimundo Reginaldo Soares Santos ,
Flávio Henrique Reis Moraes  and
Christoph Gehring
Aurea Maria Barbosa de Sousa
Affiliation:
Maranhão State University, Caixa Postal 09, 65054-970, São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil.
Raimundo Reginaldo Soares Santos
Affiliation:
Embrapa Experimental Station of Arari, MA, Brazil.
Flávio Henrique Reis Moraes
Affiliation:
CEUMA—Maranhão Universital Center, Maranhão, Brazil.
Christoph Gehring*
Affiliation:
Maranhão State University, Caixa Postal 09, 65054-970, São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Combining existing traditions of rice and of fish in an integrated rice−fish (IRF) culture is a promising strategy for sustainably increasing land productivity and diminishing the need for external inputs in smallholder agriculture of Amazonia. This study evaluates the potential of IRF for weed control in irrigated rice production. It was conducted from August 18 to December 5, 2008 in the Maranhão lowlands in the eastern periphery of Amazonia. We compared weed communities in four 3-year-old IRF and four adjacent ‘conventional’ irrigated rice (CIR) fields at 20 and 40 days after transplanting (DAT), at the mid-vegetative stage and at the onset of flowering, which served as an indicator of potential grain yield. Rice–fish fields contained differing mixtures of herbivore and omnivore fish species totaling 4000 fish per ha or 1.7 fish per m3. Total weed density was reduced in the IRF system, particularly early in the season, the most critical stage for rice development. The integration of fish into irrigated rice cultivation affected weed species composition, with fish-weeding preferentially reducing monocotyledonous Cyperaceae, one of the more aggressive and problematic weed families in this region. Monocot weed density was negatively correlated with rice aboveground biomass at 40 DAT rice. Although floristic similarity between IRF and CIR fields was low, the impacts of IRF on weed species diversity and weed species richness were not significant. Thus, IRF was not associated with a simplification of the weed community. We conclude that fish-weeding may substitute for manual or chemical weeding in irrigated rice agriculture, an important consideration for resource-poor smallholder agriculture in environmentally sensitive riverine or delta areas of eastern Amazonia.

Keywords

integrated systemslowland ricesmallholder agriculturesustainabilityweeds
Type
Preliminary Report
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 107 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Li, K. 1998. Rice–fish culture in China: a review. Aquaculture 71:173–186.Google Scholar
Saikia, S.K., and Das, D.N. 2008. Rice–fish culture and its potential in rural development: a lesson from Apatami farmers, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development 6:125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, M.V., Sollows, J.D., Mazid, M.A., Rahman, M.A., Hussain, M.G., and Dey, M.M. 1998. Integrating aquaculture with rice farming in Bangladesh: feasibility and economic viability, its adoption and impact. ICLARM Technical Report No. 55.Google Scholar
Wahab, M.A., Kunda, M., Azim, M.E., Dewan, S., and Thilsted, S.H. 2008. Evaluation of freshwater prawn–small fish culture concurrently with rice in Bangladesh. Aquaculture Research 39:1524–1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothuis, A.J., Nam, C.Q., Richter, C.J.J., and Ollevier, F. 1998. Polyculture of silver barb, Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker), nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.), and common carp, Cyprinus carpio L., in Vietnamese rice fields: fish production parameters. Aquaculture Research 29:661–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, H. 2002. Rice monoculture and integrated rice–fish farming in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam-economic and ecological considerations. Ecological Economics 41:95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Middendorp, A.J., and Vereth, J.A.J. 1986. The potential of and constraints to fish culture in integrated farming systems in the Lam Pao Irrigation Project, Northeast Thailand. Aquaculture 56:63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purba, S. 1998. The economics of rice-fish production systems in North Sumatra, Indonesia: an empirical and model analysis. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
Horstkotte-Wessler, G. 1999. Socioeconomics of rice aquaculture and IPM in the Philippines: synergies, potentials and problems. ICLARM Technical Report No. 57.Google Scholar
Cotrim, D., Sacknies, R.G.S., Valente, L.A.L., Rojahn, P.R., Oliveira, R.G., Severo, J.C.P., Rojahn, L.A., Leal, D.R., and Lara, V.H. 1998. Agricultura sustentável – Rizipiscicultura: Manual prático. Emater, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.Google Scholar
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). 2010. World Rice Statistics. Available at Web site http://irri.org/our-science/social-science-economics/world-rice-statisticsGoogle Scholar
Frei, M., Razzak, M.A., Hossain, M.M., Oehme, M., Dewan, S., and Becker, K. 2007. Performance of common carp, Cyprinus carpio, L. and Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.) in integrated rice–fish culture in Bangladesh. Aquaculture 262:250–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panda, M.M., Ghosh, B.C., and Sinhababu, D.P. 1987. Uptake of nutrients by rice under rice-cum-fish culture in intermediate deep water situation (up to 50-cm water depth). Plant and Soil 102:131–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Oehme, M., Frei, M., Razzak, S.D., and Becker, K. 2007. Studies on nitrogen cycling under different nitrogen inputs in integrated rice–fish culture in Bangladesh. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 79:181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labrada, R. 2003. The need for improved weed management in rice. In Proceedings of the 20th Session of the International Rice Commission, Bangkok, Thailand. p. 23–26.Google Scholar
Amaral, A.S. 1995. Controle químico de ciperáceas na cultura do arroz irrigado. Lavoura Arrozeira 48:3–6.Google Scholar
Erasmo, E.A.L., Costa, N.V., Pinheiro, L.L.A., Silva, J.I.C., Terra, M., Sarmento, R.A., Cunha, A.M., and Garcia, S.L.R. 2003. Efeito da densidade e dos períodos de convivência de Cyperus esculentus na cultura do arroz irrigado. Planta Daninha 21:381–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ni, H., Moody, K., and Robles, R.P. 2000. Oryza sativa plant traits conferring competitive ability against weeds. Weed Science 48:200–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piepho, H., and Alkemper, P.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 Science 166:289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D.E., Dingkuhn, M., Jones, M.P., and Mohamane, M.C. 1998. The influence of rice plant type and the effect of weed competition on Oryza sativa and Oryza glaberrima. Weed Research 38:207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berti, A., Dunan, C., Sattin, M., Zanin, G., and Westra, P. 1996. A new approach to determine when to control weeds. Weed Science 44:496–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vega, M.H., Ona, J.D., and Paller, E.P. 1967. Weed control in upland rice at the University of the Philippines College of Agriculture. Philippine Agriculturist 51:397–411.Google Scholar
Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Croom Helm, London. p. 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, G.J. 1994. FITOPAC 1. Manual do Usuário. Unicamp, Botanical Department, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.Google Scholar
Lilliefors, H.W. 1967. On the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. Journal of the American Statistical Association 62:399–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, R.W. 1974. An Introduction to Quantitative Ecology. McGraw-Hill/Kogakusha, Tokyo.Google Scholar
StatSoft. Statistica (data analysis software system) Inc. 2004. Version 7. Available at Web site http://www.statsoft.com(accessedJune12,2011).Google Scholar
Begum, M., Juraimi, A.S., Amartalingam, R., Rastan, S.O.B.S., and Man, A.B. 2008. Growth and development of Fimbristylis miliacea (L.) Vahl. Biotropica 15:1–10.Google Scholar
Begum, M. 2006. Biology and management of Fimbristylis miliacea (L.) Vahl. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universiti Putra, Malaysia.Google Scholar
Agrawal, R.K., Lal, J.P., and Richharia, A.K. 1978. Note on selection indices and path-coefficients in semi-dwarf rice varieties. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 48:58–60.Google Scholar
Amin, E.A. 1979. Correlation and path-coefficient analysis in some short stature rice cultivars and strains. International Rice Commission Newsletter 28:19–21.Google Scholar
Ragarathinam, S., and Raja, V.D.G. 1992. Correlation and path analysis in some rice varieties under alkaline stress. Madras Agricultural Journal 79:374–378.Google Scholar
Saif-ur-Rasheed, M., Sadaqat, H.A., and Babar, M. 2002. Correlation and path co-efficient analysis for yield and its components in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 1:241–244.Google Scholar
Fleck, N.G., Agostinneto, D., Rizzardi, M.A., Bianchi, M.A., and Menezes, V.G. 2004. Interferência de plantas concorrentes em arroz irrigado modificada por métodos culturais. Planta Daninha 22:19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oerke, E.C., and Dehne, H.-W. 2004. Safeguarding production–losses in major crops and the role of crop protection. Crop Protection 23:275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navarro, H.M. Jr., and Costa, J.A. 2002. Contribuição relativa dos componentes do rendimento para produção de grãos em soja. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira 37:269–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noldin, J.A., and Corbucci, T. 1999. Red rice infestation and management in Brazil. In: FAO Global Report on Red Rice Control, Varadero, Cuba, August 30–September 3, 1999. p. 9–13.Google Scholar
Frei, M., and Becker, K. 2005. Integrated rice–fish culture: coupled production saves resources. Natural Resources Forum 29:135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xavier, J.A.A. 2008. Crescimento de carpa capim Ctenopharyngodon idella alimentada com diferentes gramíneas. Unpublished dissertation, MSc course in Aquiculture, Federal University of Rio Grande, Brazil.Google Scholar
Zanganini, R.L. 2009. Caracterização do regime alimentar de Oroechromis niloticus na represa de Barra Bonita, Médio Rio Tietê, SP. Unpublished dissertation, MSc course in Biosciences, São Paulo State University (UNESP), São Paulo, Brazil.Google Scholar
Gelmini, G.A. 1983. Indicações de herbicidas para o controle de plantas daninhas na cultura do arroz de sequeiro. Coordenadoria de Assistência Técnica Integral, Campinas, Boletim técnico 160.Google Scholar
Keeley, P.E. 1987. Interference and interaction of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus) with crops . Weed Technology 1:74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galon, L., Concenço, G., Ferreira, E.A., Silva, A.F., Ferreira, F.A., Noldin, J.A., and Freitas, M.A.M. 2009. Competição entre plantas de arroz e biótipos de capim-arroz (Echinochloa spp.) resistente e suscetível ao quinclorac. Planta Daninha 27:6–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar