Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy

Review

Developing integrated rice-animal farming based on climate and

farmers choices
Li Yifan a, b, Wu Tiaoyan b, Wang Shaodong b, Ku Xucan b, Zhong Zhaoman b, Liu Hongyan a, b, *,
Li Jiaolong a, b, *
a
Sanya Nanfan Research Institute of Hainan University, Hainan Yazhou Bay Seed Laboratory, Sanya 572025, China
b
College of Tropical Crops, Hainan University, Haikou 570228, China

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Integrated rice-animal farming (IRF) can

produce greater economic benefits to
farmers.
• The ecological adaptability of rice-fish
and rice-duck systems are relatively
higher than that of other systems.
• IRF significantly improved soil fertility,
reduced greenhouse gases emissions,
and promoted resource-use efficiency.
• The development and distribution of IRF
are influenced by geographical location
and climatic conditions.
• Environmental factors should be
considered primarily during the devel­
opment of IRF.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Editor: Dr. Mark van Wijk CONTEXT: In recent years, integrated rice-animal farming (IRF) has gained global attention as a new rice
cultivation model. It involves approaching farming by using economical, ecologically-friendly, and resource-
Keywords: conserving methods. Many farmers do not have a clear understanding of IRF, which is challenging in many
Integrated rice-animal farming countries and regions with different environmental conditions due to the lack of a systematic theoretical
Rice-crayfish farming
knowledge base and supporting technical tools.
GHG emission
OBJECTIVE: In this paper, to gain a clearer understanding of the current IRF models used in China and other
Nutrient utilization
Ecological adaptability countries, we reviewed the different types of IRF and animals used for co-culture farming by analyzing the
Rice production economic and ecological benefits and ecological adaptability of IRF, and then assessed the adaptability of various
IRF models according to their current application in China.
METHODS: We reviewed 205 published papers on IRF models, including articles, theses, reports, statistical
yearbooks, and other relevant publications, to provide an overview of the diversity, and economic and ecological
benefits of IRF models worldwide, and to analyze the ecological adaptability according to the yield character­
istics of IRF in China.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the rice-shrimp system, particularly rice-crayfish system, can
produce more economic benefits in China. By comparing the economic and ecological benefits of different IRF
models, we found that rice-fish and rice-duck systems are suitable for large-scale application because of their

* Corresponding authors at: Sanya Nanfan Research Institute of Hainan University, Hainan Yazhou Bay Seed Laboratory, Sanya 572025, China.
E-mail addresses: liuhy@hainanu.edu.cn (L. Hongyan), jiaolong.li@hainanu.edu.cn (L. Jiaolong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103554
Received 28 June 2022; Received in revised form 28 September 2022; Accepted 21 October 2022
Available online 31 October 2022
0308-521X/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Yifan et al. Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554

high climatic adaptability. The analysis also found that (a) the development and distribution of IRF are influ­
enced by geographical location and climatic conditions in China, (b) the area of IRF is consistent with the dis­
tribution of rainfall amount, and (c) co-cultured animals were more affected by temperature than rice growth.
This indicates that when developing IRF in a specific region, co-culture animals and ecological adaptability must
be considered in advance.
SIGNIFICANCE: Integrated rice-animal farming is an effective measure to promote the combination of planting,
cultivating, and driving sustainable agriculture. Therefore, differences in the development of integrated rice-
animal farming among regions must be considered to ensure the successful use of IRF under variable climatic
conditions. In this review, the advantages and ecological adaptability of each IRF model are summarized, which
can help guide the development of IRF in the future.

1. Introduction
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is the second-largest food source and is pro­
duced in 117 countries worldwide (FAOSTAT, 2018). Due to the ever-
increasing dramatic rise in the human population, the food demand is
also increasing rapidly, which has led many countries to respond to food
shortages by continuously expanding the cultivation area under rice
cultivation. At the same time, soil degradation due to intensive man­
agement, soil pollution and degradation, arable land occupation, and
loss of arable land have contributed to a decrease in the effective arable
land area across the world (Yang, 2001). Several previous studies have
shown that animal farming in conjunction with rice cultivation can
improve the utilization of land resources, optimize the cultivation
structure, increase rice production, provide additional farming products,
avoid wastage of resources, increase farmers’ income, and ensure food
security. Moreover, these systems can also enhance the biodiversity of
paddy ecosystems, promote nutrient recycling, and protect the envi­
ronment (Magulama, 1993; Weimin, 2010; Li et al., 2019d; Liu et al.,
2019; Bashir et al., 2021). Consequently, integrated rice-based farming
(IRF) models have received a great deal of attention worldwide in recent
years. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Na­
tions included the rice-fish symbiosis system in Qingtian, Zhejiang,
China as a component of the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage
Systems (GIAHS) (Xie et al., 2011).
Rice monoculture presents many challenges, including low and un­
stable yields (Bandyopadhyay and Puste, 2001), poor rice quality (Li
et al., 2019d), and severe pest and disease incidence (Qiang et al., 2016).
Nevertheless, IRF is superior to rice monoculture in many ways, as it
allows for higher grain yields (Wan et al., 2019) and grain quality (Wang
et al., 2004), promotes nutrient recycling (Feng et al., 2016), and re­
duces the occurrence of pests and diseases (Berg, 2001) as well as
greenhouse gas emissions (Lu and Li, 2006). However, different alter­
natives to IRF have been explored, including rice-fish, rice-duck, rice-
shrimp, and rice-crab farming, among others (Yan et al., 2014; Bun­
ting et al., 2017; Yuan et al., 2020). These different alternatives of IRF
have various strengths and weaknesses. The environmental conditions
under which they are adapted vary greatly, which has led to inappro­
priate applications in many areas.
This paper provides an overview of the application and development
of IRF models in China and other countries. As such, this review aims to
provide a clearer understanding of the current models used in China and
abroad by analyzing the economic as well as the ecological benefits of
the different IRF models, and to assess the range of adaptation of various
IRF models according to their current application and promotion in
China. Finally, based on the above systematic analysis, theoretical bases
and recommendations are provided for future extension and application
of IRF models.
Korea (Kim et al., 1992), Laos (Nguyen-Khoa et al., 2003), Nepal (Wagle
et al., 2005), and Iran (Ali et al., 2012) in Asia; Mali, Senegal, Côte
d’Ivoire, Niger, and Ghana (Sanni and Juanich, 2006); Congo, Sierra
Leone (Olapade, 2015), Guinea (Simon and Benhamou, 2009), Kenya
(Rasowo et al., 2008), and Malawi in Africa (Dey et al., 2010); and
Colombia in South America (Degiovanni et al., 2010). Of the 117 rice-
producing countries worldwide, 47 countries, or approximately 40%
of the rice-producing countries worldwide, have promoted and applied
IRF in rice cultivation (Fig. 1).
Rice-fish culture has been considered to originate in Southeast Asia
at least 6000 years ago (Ruddle, 1982). It originally evolved from the
rice-wild fish system, as irrigation water from rivers and reservoirs
flowed into rice fields to ensure rice growth, while accidentally intro­
ducing stray fish, thus building up the original form of rice-fish co-cul­
ture. Currently, the rice-wild fish system is still common in some parts of
India (Das, 2002). However, with the development of agricultural civi­
lization and society, IRF models have diversified and an increasing
number of farm animals are involved (Table 1). For example, rice-
shrimp farming is used in some East and South Asian countries such as
Bangladesh, India, Thailand, Vietnam, and China (Huy Giap et al., 2005;
Lam, 2006; Mohanty et al., 2009; Ahmed et al., 2010). The culture is
generally dominated by Macrobrachium rosenbergii and Penaeus monodon
(Karapanagiotidis et al., 2010; Bunting et al., 2017). The rice-crayfish
(Procambarus clarkii) model is mainly used in China and the United
States (Chien and Avault, 1980). The rice-duck model is used in many
Asian countries, including China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand,
Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and Iran (Cagauan et al., 2000; Pirdashti et al.,
2015). There are several applications of IRF models that fit the char­
acteristics of regional farming, such as the rice-fish-duck system in
Indonesia (Suriapermana and Syamsiah, 1995), rice-fish-pig farming
system in the Philippines (Encarnacion, 1985), duck-fish-rice culture
rotation system in Vietnam (Thien et al., 1995), rice-fish-pig system in
Sierra Leone (Olapade, 2015), rice-crab farming in Bangladesh (Salam
et al., 2003), and rice-snail farming in Korea and Japan (Jin and Yan,
2011). In addition, the use of ponds and other common aquaculture
areas for pond rice-fish co-culture is a unique form of IRF. Globally,
farmed ponds are present in an area of 110,832 km2 (nearly 6.7% of the
world’s rice cultivation area) and they are mainly located in Asian
countries, including China, India, and Bangladesh (Verdegem and
Bosma, 2009). The problems of pond siltation and eutrophication of
culture pond water can also be alleviated or solved by applying IRF
models (Boyd and Zimmermann, 2010). Therefore, pond rice-fish co-
culture is considered as a potentially new and sustainable way to in­
crease the area and yield of rice cultivation in Asian countries (Feng
et al., 2016).
2.1. IRF in China

2. Worldwide application of IRF
Many rice-producing countries have begun to apply and develop IRF.
Coche (1967) reported that 32 countries, including China, had already
explored and practiced IRF for up to 50 years. Other countries that have
promoted and applied this model in the last 50 years include South
The earliest rice-fish farming in China has been discovered from
2000 years ago during the Han Dynasty, and ancient pottery excavated
from the Eastern Han tombs depicted fish farming in rice fields (Weimin,
2010; Dan et al., 2012). China is one of the largest rice producers
globally, with approximately 25 million ha of rice fields nationwide.
Approximately 10 million ha of rice fields are considered suitable for

2
L. Yifan et al.
fish farming (Meng and Wu, 2002). Since the late 1990s, a fundamental
change has occurred in the development of rice-fish culture in China,
with the focus on rice-fish farming shifting from a production-centered
approach to a more ecologically and socioeconomically oriented
model. With the development of planting technology, farming technol­
ogy, and ecological awareness, rice-animal farming models are being
vigorously developed in China. The area under the IRF model has grown
from <5% of the total rice-planted area in 2015 to approximately 8% in
2019 (Hu et al., 2015; FAOSTAT, 2018; National Fisheries Technology
Extension Center, 2020c).
Currently, rice-fish, rice-crab, rice-shrimp, rice-loach, and rice-
softshell turtle systems are the most dominant IRF models in China,
accounting for approximately 80% of the IRF area (Hu et al., 2016). The
latest data about IRF in China are as follows (Table 2): rice-fish system is
widely distributed throughout the country, accounting for 41.4% of the
IRF area, with Sichuan, Hunan, Guizhou, Guangxi, and Yunnan as the
main production areas; rice-crab system is mainly distributed in the
northeast and some coastal areas, accounting for 5.9% of the IRF areas,
and is distributed in Liaoning, Jilin, Jiangsu, Hunan, and Shanghai; rice-
shrimp system mainly refers to rice-crayfish system (Procambarus
clarkia) and is found in the reaches of the Yangtze River in China, ac­
counting for 47.7% of the IRF area, and is dominant in Hubei, Anhui,
Hunan, Jiangsu, and Jiangxi; rice-loach system is widely distributed in
the country, accounting for 1.9% of the IRF area, and is mainly located
in Hubei, Anhui, Hunan, Guangxi, and Shaanxi; rice-softshell turtle
system is mainly distributed in the middle and lower reaches of the
Yangtze River, accounting for 0.7% of the IRF area, in the provinces of
Hubei, Hunan, Anhui, Zhejiang, and Jiangxi.
In addition, different IRF models have been developed by effectively
combining different local characteristics in China. For example, the rice
snail (Cipangopaludina chinensis Gray) is mainly distributed in Guangxi
(Wu, 2018). Rice frogs are mainly distributed in Hunan, Jiangxi,
Fig. 1. Countries applying the integrated rice-animal farming (IRF).
3
Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554
Sichuan, and Guizhou, and the most common species are tiger frogs
(Hoplobatrachus rugulosus) and bull frogs (Pelophylax nigromaculatus) (Li
et al., 2020b; Chen et al., 2021a). Rice-poultry farming is largely
dominated by rice ducks, which are widely distributed throughout
China. The common species used is the Ma duck (Anas platyrhyncha),
among which the Gaoyou Ma and Shaoxing Ma ducks are farmed more
widely. In addition, there are applications for rice-chicken farming in
Hunan (Xia et al., 2019).
In this paper, we drew the IRF model distribution characteristics for
China, as shown in Fig. 2. Currently, the IRF has developed into an
essential role in rice cultivation in China, with almost all provinces and
regions except Tibet, Qinghai, and Gansu developing rice-animal co-
cultures. This contributes to China’s food security and rural livelihoods,
economic development, and environmental protection. However, the
statistical data and analysis of the ratio of IRF applications in each
province and region of China (Fig. 3) showed that the proportion of IRF
in a few provinces reaches approximately 10–20%, whereas the pro­
portion in most regions is much <5%. This result demonstrated that IRF
is distributed unevenly throughout China, which may be related to the
geographical and climatic conditions and the attitudes of local govern­
ments and rice farmers. Among the provinces, the IRF ratio in Shanxi
was much higher than in many other provinces, reaching 11.2% in 2019.
This is because the cultivation area is mainly dominated by upland
crops, with only 2500 ha of rice planting area in Shanxi. Further, the
outstanding economic benefits of IRF attract government support and
farmers’ motivation, which is also the reason for the high IRF ratio in
Shanxi.
Note: TJ (Tianjin), HeB (Hebei), SX (Shanxi), NMG (NeiMongol), LN
(Liaoning), JL (Jilin), HLJ (Heilongjiang), SH (Shanghai), JS (Jiangsu),
ZJ (Zhejiang), AH (Anhui), FJ (Fujian), JX (Jiangxi), SD (Shandong),
HeN (Henan), HuB (Hubei), HuN (Hunan), GD (Guangdong), GX
(Guangxi), HN (Hainan), CQ (Chongqing), SC (Sichuan), GZ (Guizhou),
L. Yifan et al.
Table 1
Integrative rice-animal farming (IRF) in various countries.
Country Integrative rice-animal farming
(Species suitable for promotion)
China Rice-fish (Cyprinus carpio,
Cyprinus carpio var. color,
Ctenopharyngodon idella,
Tachysurus fulvidraco,
Oreochromis niloticus,
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix,
Aristichthys nobilis, Carassius
auratus, Parabramis pekinensis,
Megalobrama amblycephala,
Mylopharyngodon piceus,
Monopterus albus, Carassius
carassius, Odontobutis obscurus,
Pampus argenteus) Rice-shrimp
(Procambarus clarkii,
Macrobrachium nipponense,
Macrobrachium rosenbergii,
Penaeus vannamei) Rice-crab
(Eriocheir sinensis) Rice-loach
(Misgurnus anguillicaudatus) Rice-
snail (Cipangopaludina chinensis
Gray) Rice-duck (Tadorna, Anas
platyrhynchos, Anas platyrhyncha
var.domestica) Rice-frog
(Hoplobatrachus rugulosus, Rana
catesbiana) Rice-softshell turtle
(Trionyx sinensis) Rice-turtle
(Chinemys reevesii)
India Rice-fish (Cyprinus carpio,
Cirrhinus mrigala, Labeo rohita,
Gibelion catla, Puntius gonionotus,
Clarias batrachus, Cirrhinus
mrigala, Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix, Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Rice-shrimp (Penaeus monodon,
Macrobrachium rosenbergii)
Bangladesh Rice-fish (Cyprinus carpio,
Oreochromis niloticus, Puntius
gonionotus, Labeo rohita, Gibelion
catla, Amblypharyngodon mola)
Rice-shrimp (Penaeus monodon,
Macrobrachium rosenbergii) Rice-
crab (Scylla serrata)
Thailand Rice-fish (Cyprinus carpio,
Oreochromis niloticus, Puntius
gonionotus, Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix, Puntius brevis, Rasbora
borapetensis, Anabas testudineus,
Channa striata, Clarias
macrocephalus, Clarias batrachus,
Trichoguster pectoralis, Monopterus
albus, Rashoru argyrotaenia, Labeo
rohita, Cirrhinus mrigala,
Aristichthys nobilis,
Hypophthalmichtys molitrix,
Ctenopharyngodon idella,
Oreochromis niloticus, Clarias
gariepinus, Oreochromis
mossambicus) Rice-shrimp
(Macrobrachium nipponense,
Macrobrachium rosenbergii) Rice-
duck
Indonesia Rice-fish (Cyprinus carpio,
Oreochromis niloticus, Clarias
batrachus) Rice-duck Rice-fish-
duck
Myanmar Rice-fish (Labeo rohita,
Barbonymus gonionotus)
Philippines Rice-fish (Oreochromis niloticus)
Rice-duck Rice-fish-pig
Malaysia Rice-fish (Anabas testudineus,
Trichopodus pectoralis)
Vietnam Rice-fish (Oreochromis niloticus,
Cyprinus carpio, Puntius
References
(Li, 1988; Li et al., 2008; Yuan
et al., 2009; Weimin, 2010; Hu
et al., 2013; Feng et al., 2014;
Huang et al., 2014; Feng et al.,
2016; Wang, 2018; Gao et al.,
2019; Li et al., 2019a; Liu et al.,
2019; Lv et al., 2019; Wei et al.,
2019; Gao et al., 2020; Guo
et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2020; Lin
and Wu, 2020)
(Datta et al., 1986; Biswas
et al., 1987; Datta et al., 2009;
Ahmed and Garnett, 2010;
Bhattacharyya et al., 2013)
(Haroon, 1998; Salam et al.,
2003; Kunda et al., 2008; Dey
et al., 2013; Ahmed et al.,
2014a; Bunting et al., 2017;
Billah et al., 2020)
(Little et al., 1996; Cagauan
et al., 2000; Berg, 2002; Huy
Giap et al., 2005;
Karapanagiotidis et al., 2010)
(Suriapermana and Syamsiah,
1995; Dwiyana and Mendoza,
2006)
(Dubois et al., 2019)
(Encarnacion, 1985; Van Dam,
1990; Cagauan et al., 2000)
(Ali, 1990; Abdullah, 2004)
4
Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554
Table 1 (continued )
Country Integrative rice-animal farming References
(Species suitable for promotion)
gonionotus, Hypophthalmichthys (Thien et al., 1995; Nhan et al.,
molitrix, Anabas testudineus, 1997; Lam, 2006; Cao Quoc,
Trichopodus pectoralis) Rice- 2011; Bosma et al., 2012)
shrimp (Macrobrachium
rosenbergii)Rice-duck Rice-fish-
duck Rotation
Iran Rice-fish (Ctenopharyngodon (Nahvi et al., 2009; Pirdashti
idella, Hypophthalmichthys et al., 2015)
molitrix) Rice-duck
Pakistan Rice-fish (Cyprinus carpio) (Baloch et al., 1997)
Nepal Rice-fish (Wagle et al., 2005)
Japan Rice-fish (Cyprinus carpio, (Cagauan et al., 2000; Jin and
Carassius carassius) Rice-duck Yan, 2011; Koseki, 2014)
Rice-snail
Brazil Rice-fish (Cyprinus carpio, (Sousa et al., 2012)
Ctenopharyngodon idella, Piaractus
mesopotamicus, Colossoma
macropomum, Oreochromis
niloticus)
Colombia Rice-fish (Prochilodus (Degiovanni et al., 2010)
magdalenae, Colossoma
macropomum)
Guinea Rice-fish (Oreochromis niloticus, (Simon and Benhamou, 2009)
Heterobranchus isopterus, Heterotis
niloticus, Hemichromis fasciatus)
Mali Rice-fish (Oreochromis niloticus, (vNiaré and Kalossi, 2014)
Clarias gariepinus)
Madagascar Rice-fish (Cyprinus carpio, (Dadzie, 1992)
Oreochromis niloticus)
Sierra Rice-fish-pig (Clarias gariepinus) (Olapade, 2015)
Leone
Côte Rice-fish (Oreochromis niloticus) (Delphin et al., 2020)
d’Ivoire
Nigeria Rice-fish (Oreochromis niloticus, (Miller et al., 2006; Yisa et al.,
Cyprinus carpio, Clarias gariepinus, 2011; Onoh et al., 2020)
Heterobranchus bidorsalis,
Coptodon zillii, Mango tilapia
Sarotherodon galilaeus, Jewelfish
Hemichromis bimaculatus,
Hemichromis fasciatus,
Auchenoglanis occidentalis, Clarias
gariepinus, Clarias anguillaris,
Protopterus annectens, Parachanna
africana, Polypterus senegalus,
Alestes dentex)
Egypt Rice-fish (Cyprinus carpio, (Suloma, 2006)
Oreochromis niloticus, Coptodon
zillii, Clarias gariepinus, Clarias
fuscus, Trichopodus pectoralis,
Anabas testudineus) Rice-shrimp
(Macrobrachium)
Ghana Rice-fish (Oreochromis niloticus) (Dartey et al., 1999)
Liberia Rice-fish (Oreochromis niloticus) (Bolay et al., 1990)
Senegal Rice-fish (Diallo, 2000)
Kenya Rice-fish (Clarias gariepinus, (Olambla, 2012)
Oreochromis niloticus)
Notes: Common carp (Cyprinus carpio), Oujiang color carp (Cyprinus carpio var.
color), Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix), Black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus), Bighead carp (Aristichthys nobi­
lis), Crucian carp (Carassius carassius), Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), Mossam­
bique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus), Redbelly tilapia (Coptodon zillii),
Mango tilapia (Sarotherodon galilaeus), Yellow catfish (Tachysurus fulvidraco),
White amur bream (Parabramis pekinensis), Wuchang bream (Megalobrama
amblycephala), Asian swamp eel (Monopterus albus), Silver pomfret (Pampus
argenteus), Sha tang li (Odontobutis obscurus), Pond loach (Misgurnus anguilli­
caudatus), Chinese Mitten Crab (Eriocheir sinensis), Chinese Mystery Snail
(Cipangopaludina chinensis Gray), Gaoyou Ma Duck (Anas platyrhynchos),
Shaoxing Ma Duck (Anas platyrhyncha var.domestica), Tiger Frog (Hoplobatrachus
rugulosus), Bull Frog (Rana catesbiana), Softshell turtle (Trionyx sinensis), Chinese
Pond Turtle (Chinemys reevesii), Red Swamp Crayfish (Procambarus clarkii),
Oriental river prawn (Macrobrachium nipponense), Giant River Prawn (Macro­
brachium rosenbergii), Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei), Black tiger
shrimp (Penaeus monodon), Roho labeo (Labeo rohita), Catla (Gibelion catla),
L. Yifan et al. Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554

Mola carplet (Amblypharyngodon mola), Climbing perch (Anabas testudineus), YN (Yunnan), Sx (Shaanxi), NX (Ningxia), XJ (Xinjiang).
African bonytongue (Heterotis niloticus), Striped snakehead (Channa striata),
Snakeskin gourami ()Trichopodus pectoralis, India mrigal (Cirrhinus mrigala), 3. Analysis of economic benefits of IRF
Pacu (Piaractus mesopotamicus), Cachama (Colossoma macropomum), Bocachico
(Prochilodus magdalenae), Bubu (Auchenoglanis occidentalis), Mudfish (Clarias
3.1. Rice-fish farming
anguillaris), West African lungfish (Protopterus annectens), Channa africana
(Parachanna africana), Gray bichir (Polypterus senegalus), Characin (Alestes den­
tex), Silver barb (Puntius gonionotus), Giant mud crab (Scylla serrata), Swamp The rice-fish farming model is carried out in the form of rice-fish co-
barb (Puntius brevis), Jewelfish (Hemichromis bimaculatus), Banded jewelfish () culture or rice-fish rotations: rice-fish co-culture involves introducing
Hemichromis fasciatus, Blackline rasbora (Rasbora borapetensis), Silver rasbora juvenile fish for simultaneous farming during rice cultivation and then
(Rasbora argyrotaenia), Philippine catfish (Clarias batrachus), Amur catfish generally harvesting the adult fish after the rice is harvested, whereas
(Silurus asotus), Guinea catfish (Heterobranchus isopterus), Bighead catfish rice-fish rotations involve harvesting the adult fish before rice cultiva­
(Clarias macrocephalus), North African catfish (Clarias gariepinus), African catfish tion or introducing juvenile fish after the rice has matured. More
(Heterobranchus bidorsalis), Hong Kong catfish (Clarias fuscus). recently, rice-fish farming has expanded widely in many countries
because of its apparent advantages in terms of cost savings, reduced
energy consumption, and increased economy compared with traditional
Table 2
rice monoculture (Sollows and Tongpan, 1986; Purba, 1998). On
Different models of integrated rice-animal farming (IRF) in various provincial
administrative regions of China (most of the data comes from China’s integrated
average, the net income from rice fish farming was 37.67% higher than
rice and fishery farming industry development report (National Fisheries that from rice monoculture across different countries. There were more
Technology Extension Center, 2019, 2020b, 2020c)). economic benefits of rice-fish farming in China than in other countries
investigated (Fig. 4a).
Region Integrated rice-animal farming References
A previous study also demonstrated that incorporating carp and fish
Heilongjiang Rice-fish, rice-shrimp, rice-crab, (Zhang, 2020) feed into rice fields significantly increased rice yield (Bandyopadhyay
rice-loach, rice-softshell turtle,
rice-duck, rice-frog
and Puste, 2001), indicated by the increase in spikelet number of rice,
Xinjiang Rice-crab, rice-duck (Yang et al., 2012; Feng et al., grain number per square meter, and percentage of filled grains, which
2014) contributed to the increased yield per unit area (Magulama, 1993). In
Shanxi Rice-fish, rice-crab, rice-duck (Qiao et al., 2018) 1994, multisite research assessing the performance of a rice-fish co-
Ningxia Rice-fish, rice-crab, rice-loach (Cui and Liu, 2018)
culture was conducted in the Philippines. Among the multiple sites,
Shandong Rice-crab, rice-shrimp, rice- (Li, 2018; Zhang, 2019)
loach, rice-softshell turtle yield performances from 67% of the researched rice fields stocked with
Henan Rice-fish, rice-crab, rice-shrimp, (Liu et al., 2018; Feng, 2019) fish were better than those in rice monoculture fields, and rice yields in
rice-loach, rice-softshell turtle rice-fish co-culture fields were approximately 13% higher than rice
Jiangsu Rice-fish, rice-shrimp, rice- (Zhang et al., 2017; Zhao and monoculture (Akhteruzzaman et al., 1994). In China, rice yield per unit
loach, rice-softshell turtle, rice- Zhang, 2017)
duck
area has also increased by 4.1% in rice-fish co-cultures (Wan et al.,
Anhui Rice-fish, rice-crab, rice-shrimp, (Qiang et al., 2016; Liu and 2019). According to the IRF standard, opening channels on each side of
rice-loach, rice-softshell turtle, Fang, 2019) the rice field was needed for aquaculture, which might cause yield loss
rice-duck due to the reduction of approximately 10% in the rice planting area
Hubei Rice-crab, rice-shrimp, rice- (Yi, 2015; Xu and Chen, 2018;
occupied by channels. However, Magulama (1990) reported that an
loach, rice-softshell turtle Tang et al., 2020)
Zhejiang Rice-fish, rice-crab, rice-shrimp, (Wang, 2010; Zhou et al., 2014; increase in rice yield could compensate for the loss of cultivated land
rice-loach, rice-softshell turtle, Yang et al., 2015) area due to channels, which was confirmed by the findings of subsequent
rice-duck, rice-snail studies in the past two decades (Frei and Becker, 2005a; Datta et al.,
Jiangxi Rice-fish, rice-crab, rice-shrimp, (Mei et al., 2019) 2009). In addition, rice fish farming can generate further income
rice-loach, rice-softshell turtle,
rice-duck, rice-frog
through fish production. In Madagascar, 200–300 kg ha− 1 of fish are
Hunan Rice-fish, rice-crab, rice-shrimp, (Hu and Wang, 2013; Huang produced in rice fields (Dabbadie and Mikolasek, 2017). In Ghana, rice-
rice-loach, rice-softshell turtle, et al., 2019; Xia et al., 2019; fish farming yielded 480 kg ha− 1 tilapia (Dartey et al., 1999). At the
rice-frog, rice-softshell turtle, Zhou et al., 2019; Liang et al., same time, the results of rice fish farming trials conducted in two loca­
rice-snail, rice-chicken 2020)
tions in Myanmar showed that fish production was 940 kg ha− 1 and 700
Yunnan Rice-fish, rice-crab, rice-shrimp,
rice-loach, rice-duck kg ha− 1 (Dubois et al., 2019). He et al. (2020) found that fish breeding in
Guizhou Rice-fish, rice-frog, rice-shrimp (Liang et al., 2021) rice fields promoted the quality of fish and income compared to pond
Fujian Rice-fish, rice-softshell turtle, (Ye, 2014) farming. Meanwhile, the market price of fish is generally higher than
rice-shrimp, rice-loach that of rice, which contributes to the higher economic returns of rice-fish
Guangxi Rice-fish, rice-loach, rice-snail (He et al., 2018)
Guangdong Rice-fish, rice-softshell turtle,
farming compared to rice monoculture (Lightfoot et al., 1990; Magu­
rice-duck lama, 1990; Baloch et al., 1997; Koseki, 2014).
Hainan Rice-shrimp In Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China, the net economic
Jilin Rice-fish, rice-crab, rice-loach value based on ecosystem services (ES) of traditional rice-fish farming
Liaoning Rice-crab, rice-loach
was 4846.3 US$ ha− 1, and that of rice monoculture was 2913.6 US$
Tianjin Rice-crab, rice-loach, rice-
softshell turtle ha− 1 (Dan et al., 2012). In the Mekong Delta provinces of CầnThơ and
Shaanxi Rice-crab, rice-loach, rice- (Wang et al., 2018; Gao et al., Tiề̀nGiang
ê in Vietnam, rice-fish farming was found to generate
softshell turtle, rice-shrimp 2021) approximately 2800.4 US$ ha− 1 yr− 1 and 2142.2 US$ ha− 1 yr− 1,
Nei Mongol Rice-softshell turtle respectively (Berg et al., 2012). Previous studies have shown that the net
Chongqing Rice-crab, rice-shrimp, rice-
income of rice-fish co-cultures is approximately 5–11% higher than that
loach
Hebei Rice-crab, rice-shrimp, rice- of rice monocultures (Ofori et al., 2005), which has reached a value of
loach 134.09% in recent years (Liu et al., 2020). The possible reason for the
Shanghai Rice-crab, rice-shrimp, rice- increased income was that healthier cultivation methods were adopted,
softshell turtle, rice-duck
which used fewer pesticides and herbicides in rice-fish farming and
Sichuan Rice-fish, rice-shrimp, rice-
loach, rice-softshell turtle, rice- produced healthier products. With increased awareness of food safety,
frog the prices of rice and aquatic products produced from IRF were nearly
two-fold higher than those of traditional paddy fields and pond farming

5
L. Yifan et al. Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554

Fig. 2. Distribution of integrated rice-animal farming (IRF) in China (rice-fish, rice-shrimp, rice-crab, rice-duck, rice-softshell turtle, rice-loach, rice-turtle, rice-frog,
rice-snail).

Fig. 3. Proportion of integrated rice-animal farming (IRF) in rice planting area (according to various provincial administrative regions).

(Feng et al., 2016). There are significant differences in the economic
benefits and net profits from rice-fish farming and rice monoculture
among countries, which directly or implicitly reflect the importance of
productivity, technology, and climate conditions in the application of
rice-fish farming systems in various countries.
3.2. Rice-shrimp farming
As with rice-fish farming, shrimp farming in rice fields can also be
categorized into rice-shrimp co-culture and rice-shrimp rotation. How­
ever, paddy-shrimp farming is more complex and requires more farming
techniques, which have a direct impact on the development and

6
L. Yifan et al. Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554

Fig. 4. Analysis of economic benefits of integrated rice-animal farming in various countries. Comparison of net revenue from rice-fish farming and rice monoculture
(a) (Berg, 2002; Ofori et al., 2005; Dwiyana and Mendoza, 2006; Ahmed and Garnett, 2011; Dan et al., 2012; Kumar et al., 2018), Comparison of net revenue from
rice-shrimp farming and rice monoculture (b) (Barmon et al., 2012; Nair et al., 2014; Jiang and Cao, 2021), Comparison of net revenue from rice-duck farming and
rice monoculture (c) (Cagauan et al., 2000; Hossain et al., 2005; Zhao et al., 2019), Comparison of net revenue from rice-multiple animals farming and rice
monoculture (d) (Cagauan et al., 2000; Channabasavanna and Biradar, 2007; Mohanty et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2019).

promotion of rice-shrimp farming. Currently, rice-shrimp farming has a
relatively large extension area, mainly in some countries, such as China,
India, and Bangladesh. Some survey data show that the net income of
rice-shrimp farming in these countries is much higher than that of rice
monoculture, among which Bangladesh has achieved the largest benefit
in rice-shrimp farming compared with rice monoculture (Fig. 4b).
Macrobrachium rosenbergii, Macrobrachium nipponense, Penaeus mon­
odon, and Penaeus vannamei are the main rice shrimp farming species in
most countries. However, in the last 10 years, rice-crayfish (Procambarus
clarkii) farming has been the dominant mode of culture in China, which
was first proposed by Viosca, promoted by Chien and Avault in Louisi­
ana, USA (Viosca, 1953; Chien and Avault, 1980), and then introduced
in China in the early 20th century. In 2019, the area of rice-crayfish
farming in China reached 1,105,400 ha. The resultant fish production
reached 1,772,500 Mg, accounting for approximately 61.1% of the na­
tional total production using IRF models (National Fisheries Technology
Extension Center, 2020c). It was estimated that the total output value of
China’s crayfish industry reached approximately $59.5 billion US$ in
2019 (National Fisheries Technology Extension Center, 2020a).
Research shows that the crayfish yield from rice-crayfish farming in
China was approximately 1500 kg ha− 1, and the purchase price of
crayfish was 1.1–2.2 US$ kg− 1 according to different sizes, and the
revenue generated by crayfish reached 6.7 × 103–1.3 × 104 US$ ha− 1,
while rice was sold at 0.6 US$ kg− 1, yield 9 Mg ha− 1, and the production
value reached 5.1 × 103 US$ ha− 1; the total production value of rice and
shrimp in a year reached 1.1 × 104–1.8 × 104 US$ ha− 1 (Cao et al.,
2017). These data demonstrate that rice-shrimp farming can bring
outstanding economic income to many farmers, particularly rice-
crayfish farming in China. However, the wide variation in economic
benefits among countries possibly exists because Procambarus clarkii is
more widely adapted to the environment and has a greater reproductive
capacity than Macrobrachium rosenbergii.
A previous study found that the scale of culture affects the average
annual net returns of the rice-shrimp farming system. Large-scale rice-
shrimp farming can bring higher yields due to a higher input, a larger
scale, and involves having more experience of rice-shrimp farming.
Therefore, the average annual net return is higher for large-scale
farming (US$ 2426) than for medium-sized (US$ 1798) and small-
scale (US$ 1420) farming (Ahmed et al., 2010). Shrimp stocking den­
sity significantly affects shrimp and rice yields because of the increased
food input and animal excretion (Wahab et al., 2008). However, despite
varying considerably from the optimal farming technology re­
quirements, the net returns from rice-shrimp farming are considerably
higher than those from rice monoculture farming (Barmon et al., 2012).
Ahmed and Garnett (2010) reported that the rice yields of rice-shrimp
(Macrobrachium rosenbergii) farming in China, Vietnam, India,
Bangladesh, and Thailand were 3500–5000, 4300–4700, 1500–2000,
1050–4200, and 3360–3556 kg ha− 1 yr− 1, respectively, while the
shrimp yields were 300–450, 286–518, 785–2133, 250–450, and
816–1268 kg ha− 1 yr− 1, respectively. Differences in rice and shrimp
production in rice-shrimp farming among countries further clarified that
practical and effective farming techniques significantly impact yield and
economic benefits.
3.3. Rice-duck farming
Raising ducks in rice fields is believed to be an effective measure for
controlling rice pests, which is a common practice among many rice
farmers. Through a series of surveys, we found that rice-duck farming in
China and Bangladesh produced two-fold higher economic benefits than
rice monoculture and up to 4.7 times higher benefits in the Philippines
(Fig. 4c).

7
L. Yifan et al.
An experiment found that grain yields in the early and late rice
seasons under rice-duck farming were 16.2% and 20.5% higher,
respectively, than those under rice monoculture (Li et al., 2020a). Rice
grains under the rice-duck farming model also had a higher brown rice
rate, head rice rate, and gel consistency, and a lower chalkiness rate than
those under rice monoculture (Wang et al., 2004). Moreover, rice-duck
farming also promoted the formation and accumulation of 2-acetyl-1-
pyrroline in the grain, which imparted a distinctive and sought-after
aroma to the fragrant rice, thus improving the grain quality of
fragrant rice (Li et al., 2019d). These studies provide evidence that rice
duck farming provides additional economic benefits by improving rice
yield and quality. A survey showed that in China, a net gain of
approximately 11,001 US$ ha− 1 could be obtained from rice-duck
farming, which is much higher than the value of 3995 US$ ha− 1 ob­
tained from conventional rice production (Zhao et al., 2019). In the
Philippines, rice and duck farming is only profitable from the second
season onward because of high initial inputs, with an average net in­
come of 1563.48 US$ ha− 1 over three cropping systems (Cagauan et al.,
2000). However, despite substantial returns, rice-duck farming is still
only used in a minority of countries worldwide. Most farmers prefer rice-
fish farming because duck farming in rice fields is more tedious to
manage than aquaculture. In addition to regular feeding, much time is
spent on controlling the movements of ducks, which limits the devel­
opment of rice-duck farming in many countries.
3.4. Rice-multiple animals farming
Traditionally, IRF has been based on one type of animal farming and
rice cultivation simultaneously. Integrated rice-animal farming has
gradually emerged as a development model that has been combined
with multiple animal farming in recent years, namely, the rice-multiple
animal farming model. We found that the economic benefits of rice-fish-
poultry, rice-turtle-fish, rice-fish-prawn, and rice-fish-duck models were
significantly higher than those of rice monoculture, with China’s rice-
turtle-fish farming model offering 6–11 times more economic income
than other rice-multiple animal farming models, offering better pros­
pects for development (Fig. 4d).
Previous studies have found that mixed rice-fish-poultry recorded
higher productivity of 15,555 kg ha− 1 yr− 1 and net returns of 1428.5 US
$ ha− 1 yr− 1, which were significantly higher than those under rice
monoculture at 6667 kg ha− 1 yr− 1 and 489.8 US$ ha− 1 yr− 1, respec­
tively (Channabasavanna and Biradar, 2007). Under rice-softshell turtle-
fish mixed farming, the gross and net profits were 15,983.8 and 15,855.1
US$ ha− 1, respectively, both considerably higher than the values for rice
monoculture at 1820.4 and 1772 US$ ha− 1 (Liu et al., 2019). In India,
net returns from integrated rice-multiple animal farming (Catla catla,
Labeo rohita, Cirrhinus mrigala, Cyprinus carpio, and Macrobrachium
rosenbergii) ranged between 1064 and 1686 US$ ha− 1, which is
approximately 23–35 times higher than that from rice monoculture
(Mohanty et al., 2009). In Bangladesh, shrimp-fish-rice mixed farming
provided average net returns of 1430 US$ ha− 1 yr− 1 (Ahmed and Gar­
nett, 2010). Moreover, further analysis of existing research suggests that
if the area of paddy farming of shrimp and fish in Bangladesh is
expanded to one-third of the 2.83 million ha flood plain, Bangladesh will
gain an additional 335 million US$ from shrimp alone (Wahab et al.,
2008).
A nine-year experiment showed that rice-frog-fish farming, rice-fish
farming, and rice monoculture produced 5402.54, 5058.31, and
4422.31 kg ha− 1 rice, respectively. The introduction of frogs and fish
into rice fields resulted in rice grain yield under rice-frog-fish and rice-
fish farming, which was 22.2% and 14.4% higher than that under rice
monoculture, respectively (Lin and Wu, 2020).
This finding certainly provides a new direction for the development
of IRF models, from rice monoculture to a combination of resource
savings from cultivation and farming. This enriches the ecological
microenvironment of rice fields and contributes significantly to the
8
Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554
efficient use of resources and socioeconomic development.
4. Analysis of ecological benefits of IRF
4.1. Improving nutrient utilization and reducing nutrient loss
Rice production and intensive fish ponds frequently utilize large
volumes of fertilizer and feed to achieve higher economic returns. This
irrational approach not only raises the cost of production input but also
harms the environment. In general, neither rice monocultures nor fish
ponds are efficient at conversion of nutrients, and the excessive input of
fertilizers and feed increases the nutrient load of water discharges, as
well as the risk of algal blooms, which impede the efficient operation of
aquatic systems. Further, managing nutrient discharge from rice agri­
culture and fish aquaculture is significantly more difficult than regu­
lating industrial pollution; hence, agricultural pollution may be a more
pressing concern in China than industrial pollution (Weimin, 2010).
IRF can use resources more efficiently and rationally by introducing
aquatic animals or other livestock for breeding, thereby reducing
resource wastage. Barmon et al. (2007) indicated that the cost of fer­
tilizer inputs required for traditional rice production was six times
higher than that for rice-shrimp farming, with almost identical rice
yields. This is because feed residues and animal manure from the
farming process play vital roles in contributing nitrogen (N), phosphorus
(P), and potassium (K) elements to rice growth (Mridha et al., 2014).
Moreover, pond rice-fish co-culture has been found to be an effective
method for mitigating eutrophication in intensively farmed ponds, and
this system significantly reduces nutrient levels in pond water and
sediments (Feng et al., 2016). Li et al. (2019b) demonstrated that rice-
fish co-culture significantly reduced the levels of total nitrogen (TN),
total phosphorus (TP), total potassium (TK), and ammoniacal nitrogen
in the water of intensively farmed catfish and shrimp ponds. Thus, rice-
fish farming is an example of sum being greater than parts, in which each
input complements the other. Rice-fish farming provides fertility for
rice, whereas rice mitigates aquaculture hazards.
IRF not only releases or transforms closed-state nutrients by the
introduction of fish, but also improves nutrient utilization by promoting
soil microbial populations and their activity, improving nitrogen fixa­
tion by microorganisms, and reducing nutrient leaching (Tie et al., 2016;
Dai et al., 2021). Studies have shown that enhanced nitrogen fixation in
rice-fish farming systems leads to increases in soil organic matter, TN,
and TP contents (Lu and Li, 2006). Rice duck farming ensures more
sustainable and environmentally friendly rice cultivation and high grain
yield through nitrogen fixation, reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus
leaching, and an increase in soil organic matter and available N, P, and K
content (Gao et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020a). Comparing
the effects of IRF models in reducing nitrogen fertilizer leakage, we
found that rice-fish farming was more effective in reducing nitrogen
fertilizer leakage than rice-duck farming (Li et al., 2008). In a study of
rice-frog-fish and rice-fish farming, it was found that both models helped
to increase soil available phosphorus, but rice-frog-fish farming pro­
vided more active phosphorus than rice-fish farming (Lin and Wu,
2020). In addition, it was found that fish manure was equivalent to 93.8
kg ha− 1 ammonium sulfate and 33.8 kg ha− 1 calcium superphosphate
application when the yield of fish was 375 kg ha− 1 (Zeng and Wang,
2006).
In summary, the IRF model improves the utilization rate of N, P, and
K elements in the soil and the nitrogen fixation of the soil through the
bioturbation of farm animals and the promotion of microbial population
and diversity, thus reducing nutrient leaching. IRF also provides solu­
tions to the problems of eutrophication of water bodies and environ­
mental pollution caused by large amounts of feed input and farming
manure in intensive farming.
L. Yifan et al.
4.2. Protecting the ecological environment and reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions
The greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O are generated mainly from
agricultural ecosystems, and there is plenty of evidence that these gases
cause serious environmental damage. The main reason for this is that
CH4 remains in the atmosphere for a longer period of time and has a
greater absorption capacity for infrared light, making its warming po­
tential approximately 23 times greater than that of CO2; the same is true
for N2O, the warming effect is approximately 150–200 times greater
than that of CO2 (Li et al., 2007). Because of this property of GHGs, their
presence in large quantities can lead to warming of the planet and the
formation of ozone holes, thus threatening human survival. Paddy fields
are the main agricultural source of GHGs because of the input of
excessive fertilizers; meanwhile, methanogenic bacteria in rice fields are
particularly active and have the unique ability to emit methane into the
atmosphere (Lansing and Kremer, 2011). Global CH4 emissions from
rice cultivation in 2019 were 29,348 kt, accounting for approximately
18.4% of the total CH4 emissions from global agricultural lands (FAO­
STAT, 2019).
The activity of animals in the IRF models can accelerate the exchange
of soil gases in rice fields, enhancing the pathway for methane to diffuse
out through the water. Furthermore, the large amount of plankton
ingested by animals in the field reduces the consumption of dissolved
oxygen in water and improves the redox conditions in the soil, thus
significantly accelerating the reoxidation of CH4 and reducing CH4
emissions. A study found that a rice-fish co-culture reduced CH4 emis­
sions by nearly 30% compared with a rice monoculture (Lu and Li,
2006). Huang et al. (2001) reported that fertilizer application in rice-fish
co-cultures is only 30% of that in traditional rice cultivation; therefore,
CH4 emissions are lower than those in rice monocultures. The flooded
environment and the application of nitrogen fertilizer to the rice field
equally promote strong activity of nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria in
the rice field, producing large amounts of N2O through nitrification and
denitrification processes. Bhattacharyya et al. (2013) found that N2O
emissions from rice-fish co-cultures were approximately 9% lower than
those from rice monocultures, as fish can increase dissolved oxygen and
reduce the denitrification process in paddy fields. Yuan et al. (2009) also
found that the total greenhouse effect from CH4 and N2O was reduced by
1269.3 and 1386.6 g CO2 ha− 1 and 864.5 and 637.2 g CO2 ha− 1 for the
rice-duck and rice-fish treatments in 2006 and 2007, respectively,
compared to the rice monoculture. In contrast, other studies have shown
that CH4 emissions from rice-fish farming were significantly higher than
those from rice monocultures (Frei et al., 2007). Possible reasons for this
include excessive fertilizer application. However, it was also found that
variation in farmed species influenced GHG emissions in IRF, e.g., CH4
emissions of 125.6, 136.0, 148.5, and 151.5 kg ha− 1 and N2O emissions
of 0.78, 0.79, 0.82, and 0.81 kg ha− 1 were recorded from rice-fish
(mrigal), rice-fish (rohu), rice-fish (common carp), and rice-fish
(catla), respectively (Bhattacharyya et al., 2013).
Aquaculture is also an important source of atmospheric methane
emissions, with pond water often being eutrophic owing to the high
density of fish stocking and high feed inputs, resulting in the conversion
of large amounts of nutrients into GHGs (Bosma and Verdegem, 2011;
Hu et al., 2013). However, the total amounts of N2O and NH3 were
mitigated by 85.6% and 26.0%, respectively, for rice-fish ponds and by
108.3% and 22.6%, respectively, for rice-shrimp ponds, compared with
those of monoculture ponds (Li et al., 2019a). Feng et al. (2021)
demonstrated that the difference in methane emissions from the rice-fish
farming model compared to conventional farm ponds is not significant,
while the seasonal total amount of N2O emissions was reduced by 42.1%
by rice-fish farming compared to fish monoculture.
4.3. Promoting biological control and reducing pests and weeds
IRF provides significant economic benefits with the introduction of
9
Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554
aquatic or livestock animals and forms a cost-efficient and safe biolog­
ical control method by suppressing the occurrence of insects and weeds
through animal habits (Oo, 1993; Li et al., 2019d). For example, grass
carp feed on young weeds, ducks feed on seeds and seedlings of weeds in
the soil, and frogs prey on insect larvae or nymphs (Abdullah, 2004).
Weeds are significantly reduced in paddy fields with water depths ≥10
cm. >100 kinds of weeds in paddy fields can be preyed upon by fish,
either directly or indirectly, reducing the reproduction rate and number
of weeds (Li, 1988; Sousa et al., 2012). Thus, the combined effect of fish
farming and high water depths has made it possible to control weeds
without or with only small amounts of herbicides (Koseki, 2014). In
Egypt, tilapia and redbelly tilapia are introduced for natural weed
control in rice fields (Suloma, 2006). It was estimated that when 1 kg of
grass carp was produced in paddy fields, the fish consumed approxi­
mately 80 kg of weeds (Zeng and Wang, 2006). Fish reduced weed
abundance by 67.6%, weed richness by 62.0%, and weed biomass by
58.9%, thereby reducing herbicide necessity by 23.4% in IRF (Wan
et al., 2019).
Fish tend to reduce pest populations in rice fields by striking rice
stalks (Lansing and Kremer, 2011). Pests can also serve as food sources
for farmed animals. The introduction of aquatic animals or poultry in
rice fields promotes predation on pests such as rice borers, leaf rollers,
brown borers, and white-backed borers, and significantly reduces the
incidence of pests and their damage. It also has a suppressive effect on
the population size of mosquitoes that tend to breed in the aquatic
environment of rice fields (Li, 1988; Bolay et al., 1990; Rasowo et al.,
2008; Huang et al., 2014; Li et al., 2019c). In addition, there is a risk of
invasion by golden apple snails (Pomacea canaliculata) during rice
growth, and the introduction of ducks can significantly reduce the
abundance of golden apple snails before rice transplantation (Cagauan
et al., 2000). Furthermore, various fish species (Oreochromis niloticus,
Cyprinus carpio, and Piaractus brachypomus) feed on these snails, with
C. carpio having the most significant predatory effect on the snail
(Hendrasih et al., 1994). Therefore, the introduction of such fish species
into paddy fields can effectively suppress snail populations.
4.4. Improving land resource utilization efficiency and reducing water
resource consumption
The highly efficient use of agricultural resources is currently an
important topic; for example, dry direct-seeded rice and wheat rotations
for the efficient use of water resources and aerobic rice for water-saving
agriculture are commonly used worldwide (Liu et al., 2014). With the
integration of rice and aquaculture, IRF plays a major role in improving
resource utilization; for example, rice-fish farming improves nutrient
utilization and maximizes the usage efficiency of water and land re­
sources (Weimin, 2010). Water productivity was at least 10% higher in a
rice-fish farming model than in a rice-monoculture model (Ahmed et al.,
2014b). On average, the land use efficiency of IRF was 1.74 times higher
than that of rice monoculture (Dwiyana and Mendoza, 2006). In addi­
tion, rice-shrimp farming effectively exploits long-abandoned coastal
saline land (Dey et al., 2013). Coastal rice-shrimp farming in Bangladesh
has been shown to improve land utilization and alleviate the shortage of
arable land resources (Bunting et al., 2017).
4.5. Reducing pesticide use and heavy metal accumulation
Microcrustaceans (branchiopods and copepods) and rotifers are food
sources for fish larvae (Noble, 1975). However, pesticide use has been
found to decrease the density of microcrustacean and rotifer populations
in Malaysia (Ali, 1990). Thus, the release of fish fry should be avoided in
the pesticide application period to reduce fish fry mortality. In practice,
compared with rice monoculture, IRF reduces the use of pesticides by
50%–100% (Lu and Li, 2006). Therefore, pesticide residues in the IRF
system are decreasing. In addition, a study found that the levels of
malathion (C10H19O6PS2), phosphide, chloride, arsenic (As), mercury
L. Yifan et al. Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554

(Hg), hexachlorocyclohexane (C6H6Cl6), and DDT in grains from a rice-
duck farming system were significantly lower than the values according
to the national regulations (Li et al., 2003). The rice-duck farming sys­
tem also reduces the accumulation of Pb in rice grains (Gao et al., 2020).
Furthermore, a previous study showed that the levels of eight heavy
metals (Cr, As, Cd, Hg, Pb, Cu, Ni, and Zn) in rice from IRF were
significantly lower than those from a conventional rice planting system
(Min, 2019).
5. Environmental factors influence the distribution of IRF
Rice and aquaculture both require cumulative temperature, and
temperature has a more serious impact on aquaculture than rice.
Therefore, the temperature adaptation range for various fish species
needs to be considered when selecting suitable species for IRF in
different regions, as shown in Table 3. The general adaptation temper­
ature of fish is approximately 10 ◦ C–30 ◦ C, whereas common carp can
survive in an environment of 3 ◦ C–35 ◦ C. Compared with other fish
species, common carp can adapt to a broader temperature range, which
is the reason they are the most widely used fish species in rice-fish
farming models. In contrast, the rice-shrimp farming model is more
sensitive to temperature, and the optimal temperature range for the
culture of Giant River Prawn is approximately 25 ◦ C–32 ◦ C (Boyd and
Zimmermann, 2010). High temperatures are harmful to shrimp survival
and growth by increasing respiratory distress, disease, and even mor­
tality in farmed species, whereas rice plant shading and proper water
depth can be excellent solutions to control the temperature in IRF. In
contrast, low temperatures can cause aquaculture to enter a dormant or
non-feeding state, which can lead to stagnant growth. The IRF has
spread to almost all provinces in China, and temperature conditions vary
among regions and seasons. Therefore, the adaptation of different spe­
cies of aquaculture to temperature must be carefully considered and
detailed planting planning is required to adapt to changing seasons.
Water resources are a prerequisite for IRF application (Mohanty
et al., 2009). The amount of water required for rice production varies
from 800 to 1200 mm depending on local evaporation and infiltration
rates, and growth duration (Frei and Becker, 2005b). The IRF model can
effectively improve water utilization, which is certainly more practical
than finding new water sources and building extensive infrastructure
irrigation facilities (Gleick, 2003). Rice-fish co-culture is a model of
aquaculture applicable in humid and rainy areas (Suloma, 2006). It has
been shown that during the entire growing season, the total water
consumed is 1385 mm in traditional rice monoculture and 1699 mm in
Table 3
The adaptation range of various fish species.
Species Latin names Climate Suitable Longitude &
temperature Latitude
range
rice-fish co-culture (Marquez, 1988). The water consumed during rice
cultivation was supplied from rainfall and irrigation. Only a few
developed agricultural countries have well-developed irrigation facil­
ities and systems, whereas in developing countries, agricultural water is
maintained by rainfall. Rainfall is mainly influenced by the climate and
monsoons, and its magnitude usually fluctuates within a specific range
in a certain region. In various provinces and regions of China, a trend of
gradually decreasing annual rainfall from south to north can be observed
(Fig. 6). Most integrated rice-fish farming models are concentrated and
developed in areas with more water and sufficient rainfall (Fig. 2). The
distribution of IRF models in China corresponded spatially well with the
distribution of rainfall (Figs. 2 and 6).
Irrigation water ensures continuous crop output in arid climatic
conditions, and developed agricultural countries have more effective
agricultural irrigation systems. According to statistics, the irrigated area
of China’s arable land accounts for 50.92% of the total arable land area,
where irrigation water can meets the requirements of farmlands. How­
ever, irrigation systems have been developed unevenly throughout
China, and more irrigation water is available in central and southeastern
China, which largely corresponds with the IRF distribution. The high
ratio of irrigated area in Xinjiang was due to the intensive agricultural
system, while Xizang, Hebei, Tianjin, and Beijing also had a high ratio of
irrigated water, which was mainly due to the lower availability of arable
land area compared with other regions (Fig. 5).
The latitudinal distribution of the IRF lies between 0◦ and 66◦ 34′
within the tropical and temperate zones (Fig. 1). In past surveys, it was
found that IRF in China was mainly concentrated in low-latitude re­
gions, such as the southwestern, south-central, and eastern regions;
however, with the development of technology, rice-fish culture has been
extended to the northeastern, northern, and northwestern parts of China
(Weimin, 2010). The application and extension of different IRF models
in different regions rely on local environmental conditions and climatic
characteristics. Specific factors affecting the distribution of different IRF
models are temperature, rainfall, irrigation conditions, and geographic
location. The following section analyses the ecological adaptability of
IRF models under different natural environmental conditions, including
rainfall, temperature, and geographical location, by comparing the yield
differences of aquatic products in various locations based on the distri­
bution of existing IRF models applied in China.
Note: XJ (Xinjiang), NX (Ningxia), QH(Qinghai), GS(Gansu), Sx
(Shaanxi), XZ(Xizang), YN (Yunnan), GZ (Guizhou), SC (Sichuan), CQ
(Chongqing), HN (Hainan), GX (Guangxi), GD (Guangdong), HuN
(Hunan), HuB (Hubei), HeN (Henan), SD (Shandong), JX (Jiangxi), FJ
(Fujian), AH (Anhui), ZJ (Zhejiang), JS (Jiangsu), SH (Shanghai), HLJ
(Heilongjiang), JL (Jilin), LN (Liaoning), NMG (NeiMongol), SX
(Shanxi), HeB (Hebei), TJ (Tianjin), BJ(Beijing).
5.1. Analysis of ecological adaptability of rice-fish farming based on yield
characteristics

Fish Oreochromis niloticus Tropical 14 ◦ C - 33 ◦ C 32◦ N - 5◦ S, Rice-fish farming is the most widely distributed model geographi­
17◦ W - 38◦ E
cally, occurring in the central, southern, southwestern, and eastern re­
Cyprinus carpio Subtropical 3 ◦ C - 35 ◦ C 4◦ N - 34◦ N,
12◦ E - 74◦ E gions of China as well as in some areas of northeast China (Fig. 2). The
Hypophthalmichthys Subtropical 6 ◦ C - 30 ◦ C 63◦ N - 8◦ N, rapid development of rice-fish farming models in recent years has nar­
molitrix 73◦ E - rowed the differences in production techniques across regions. As a
148◦ E result, the issue of significant regional differences in productivity in rice-
Mylopharyngodon Subtropical 0 ◦ C - 40 ◦ C 53◦ N -
piceus 15◦ N, 100◦ E
fish farming has slowly emerged. This is particularly evident in the
- 140◦ E production of fish products in various regions.
Misgurnus Subtropical 5 ◦ C - 25 ◦ C 53◦ N - 27◦ S Shaanxi had the highest yield of paddy fish (4875 kg ha− 1), followed
anguillicaudatus by Jiangsu (3675 kg ha− 1). Heilongjiang, Ningxia, Anhui, Yunnan,
Monopterus albus Tropical 25 ◦ C - 28 ◦ C 34◦ N - 6◦ S
Guizhou, Fujian, and Guangdong had 300, 1080, 975, 1032.75, 826.5,
Shrimp Macrobrachium Tropical 25 ◦ C - 32 ◦ C
rosenbergii 647.25, and 183.13 kg ha− 1, respectively (Fig. 7a). Based on this in­
Procambarus clarkii Subtropical 10 ◦ C - 35 ◦ C formation, we can conclude that the optimum temperature for fish
Crab Eriocheir sinensis Subtropical 5 ◦ C - 35 ◦ C farming in rice fields is between 16 ◦ C–17 ◦ C, and the optimum rainfall is
Softshell Trionyx sinensis Subtropical 10 ◦ C - 30 ◦ C between 790 and 977 mm. High temperatures reduce the amount of
turtle
dissolved oxygen in the water, leading to impaired respiratory function

10
L. Yifan et al. Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554

Fig. 5. Effective arable irrigated area in various provincial administrative regions (Data from China Water Statistics Yearbook).

Fig. 6. Annual rainfall distribution in provinces of China.

11
L. Yifan et al. Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554

Fig. 7. Relationship between fish production and environmental factors (temperature & rainfall) in different integrated rice-animal farming (IRF) models in various
provinces. Rice-fish farming (a) (Cui and Liu, 2018; Wang, 2018; Yao, 2019; Zhang and Li, 2019; Che et al., 2021; Huang, 2021; Jiang et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021;
Wu et al., 2021a); rice-shrimp farming (b) (Wang et al., 2014; Ye, 2014; Cao et al., 2017; Li, 2018; Zhang et al., 2018; Feng, 2019; Che et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2021;
Wu et al., 2021b); rice-crab farming (c) (Yang et al., 2012; Li, 2018; Zheng et al., 2018; Zhang and Li, 2019; Chen et al., 2021b; Ding et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2021; Qu
et al., 2021; Xi, 2021); rice-softshell turtle farming (d) (Zhou et al., 2012; Ye, 2014; Zhou et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2017; Li, 2018; Wang et al., 2018; Zhang, 2019; Che
et al., 2021).

and increased fish morbidity, while low temperatures reduce the
metabolic activity of fish, making them susceptible to hibernation and
reducing feeding (Chen et al., 2006). Excessive rainfall leads to flooding
and the removal of fry and adult fish, whereas low rainfall leads to a lack
of symbiotic environments for rice-fish farming. For example, in Tibet,
Qinghai, Gansu, and Xinjiang, there is almost no fish farming in rice
fields. Extreme environments have a significant impact on rice-fish
farming, and environmental constraints should be primarily consid­
ered to avoid losses to farmers.
5.2. Analysis of ecological adaptability of rice-shrimp farming based on
yield characteristics
Originally, rice-shrimp farming was mainly located in several prov­
inces with high rainfall in the Yangtze River Basin, including Hubei,
Anhui, and Jiangsu. However, the availability of better technology for
cultivating crayfish in rice fields and the promotion of a new food cul­
ture led to a rapid expansion of rice-shrimp farming since the year 2000.
Many provinces have developed integrated rice-shrimp farming models
and obtained good yields (Fig. 7b).
The yields of shrimp farming in rice fields in Shandong, Shaanxi,
Henan, Jiangsu, Hubei, Anhui, Hunan, Zhejiang, and Fujian were 300,
1580, 1875, 2100, 1500, 2438, 2220, 1575, and 750 kg ha− 1, respec­
tively. Except for Shandong and Fujian, all provinces achieved average
yields >1500 kg ha− 1. The lower shrimp yields in Shandong were
mainly due to the lower rainfall, and due to higher rainfall in Fujian.
Williams et al. (2004) also identified flooding and drought as major
problems and high-risk factors for rice-shrimp farming, respectively. As
a result, shrimp production was lower in Shandong and Fujian than in
other provinces. However, the effect of temperature on shrimp yield in
rice paddies was not significant, as crayfish can adapt to survive at
temperatures of 10 ◦ C–35 ◦ C (Table 3). Therefore, we can conclude that
the optimum environmental conditions for shrimp farming in rice fields
are 16 ◦ C–19.5 ◦ C in terms of temperature and 790–1600 mm in terms of
rainfall.
5.3. Analysis of ecological adaptability of rice-crab farming based on
yield characteristics
Compared to rice-shrimp farming, the yield of rice-crab farming was
relatively low at 175.5, 363, 444.6, 510, 525, 317.85, 405, 930, and 992
kg ha− 1 in Heilongjiang, Liaoning, Ningxia, Xinjiang, Shandong, Tianjin,
Jiangsu, Yunnan, and Hubei, respectively. Combining the average
annual rainfall and temperature of each region, it was found that there
was marginal variation in crab production in paddy fields with rainfall
between 525 and 977 mm and temperatures between 5.5 ◦ C and 17 ◦ C.
Crab production was higher in Yunnan and Hubei, where the tempera­
ture was between 17 ◦ C and 17.5 ◦ C and rainfall was between 1100 and
1200 mm (Fig. 7c). Thus, it is reasonable to infer that the rice crab
farming model is suitable for high temperature and high rainfall
conditions.
5.4. Analysis of ecological adaptability of rice-softshell turtle farming
based on yield characteristics
Rice-softshell turtle farming produced 525, 1395, 1500, 675, 792,
750, 1445, and 804 kg ha− 1 softshell turtle in Shandong, Shaanxi,
Henan, Jiangsu, Anhui, Hubei, Zhejiang, and Fujian, respectively.
Softshell turtle farming in rice fields varies greatly from region to region,
and softshell turtle production did not correlate with temperature or

12
L. Yifan et al.
rainfall; thus, high temperatures and rainfall can be expected to have
marginal effect on softshell turtle farming (Fig. 7d).
6. Conclusions
As a new type of rice cultivation technology, IRF has the advantages
of reduced costs, higher returns, requirement of application of fewer
pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and maintenance of ecological di­
versity. However, many farmers are considerably hindered in the
application process and even have low recognition of IRF owing to
operational difficulties and susceptibility to environmental influences.
This review systematically introduces the economic and ecological
benefits of IRF and explains its various advantages. Che et al. (2021)
arrived at a similar conclusion by comparing the production and in­
vestment ratios of different IRF models: rice-shrimp > rice-turtle > rice-
catfish > rice-duck > rice-loach. In addition, the ecological adaptability
analysis of the IRF revealed that a humid climate with high temperature
and rainfall is more suitable for the development of the rice-fish system,
but the differences in the species of farmed fish can lead to inconsistent
adaptation to temperature ranges, such as the case of Misgurnus anguil­
licaudatus. The rice-crayfish system is mainly suitable for development
in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River, which is located in
the same latitude region as the crayfish origin. Rice-crab/turtle systems
are suitable in areas where the average annual temperatures are in the
range of approximately 10 ◦ C–30 ◦ C; temperatures that are too cold or
hot are not suitable for the growth of crabs/turtles, and the four distinct
seasons are relatively more suitable for crab/turtle breeding. The rice-
duck system has fewer requirements in terms of environmental condi­
tions, and the requirements for rice growth are slightly less than those
for ducks, which is suitable for many colder areas.
In addition, we found that farmed species vary greatly in their
adaptability to different natural environments, which suggests that IRF
has stringent requirements in terms of the species farmed. The intro­
duced fish species should meet the following requirements: the diet must
be herbivorous or omnivorous; it should be able to tolerate harsh en­
vironments such as shallow water, high and variable temperatures, low
oxygen levels, and high turbidity; and perform well under adverse
conditions (Hora, 1962). Dey et al. (2013) also concluded that the se­
lection of fish or crustacean species in IRF systems depends on water
resources (freshwater, saline/brackish water, or low salinity), biodi­
versity, and feedback from local, national, or export markets. Different
locally-adapted species can be explored in comprehensive field trials
before being widely used.
In comparison with uncontrollable environmental influences, such as
climatic conditions, geographic location, and temperature, the control­
lable factor that currently constrains the development of IRF is the
availability of water resources. Although the amount of rainfall directly
affects the development of IRF, research on water management systems
will be critical for applying IRF, as is the case in Africa (Koide et al.,
2015). Nevertheless, there are still many water-scarce areas where IRF is
well-developed. Therefore, the improvement in irrigation infrastructure
is significant in the face of insufficient rainfall to support the application
of IRF. In China, the proportion of irrigated arable land is approximately
51%, and the rainfall is unevenly distributed, with only a few provinces
able to achieve an irrigated area/total arable land ratio of >80%
(Ministry of Water Resources, 2020). To achieve the sustainable devel­
opment of IRF, it is necessary to consider local rainfall and irrigation
conditions when developing an IRF model in a region/country.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
13
Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554
Data availability
The authors are unable or have chosen not to specify which data has
been used.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Key Research and Development Pro­
gram of Hainan (ZDYF2022XDNY174); Natural Science Foundation of
Hainan (320QN183); and Scientific Research Project of Universities in
Hainan (Hnky2021-4).
References
Abdullah, S., 2004. Conversion of Kampong Ewa Rice Fields in Langkawi, Malays, into
Organic Rice Farming. Regional Institute Ltd.
Ahmed, N., Garnett, S., 2010. Sustainability of freshwater prawn farming in rice fields in
Southwest Bangladesh. J. Sustain. Agric. 34, 659–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10440046.2010.493397.
Ahmed, N., Garnett, S.T., 2011. Integrated rice-fish farming in Bangladesh: meeting the
challenges of food security. Food Secur. 3, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-
011-0113-8.
Ahmed, N., Allison, E.H., Muir, J.F., 2010. Rice fields to prawn farms: a blue revolution
in Southwest Bangladesh? Aquac. Int. 18, 555–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10499-009-9276-0.
Ahmed, N., Bunting, S.W., Rahman, S., Garforth, C.J., 2014a. Community-based climate
change adaptation strategies for integrated prawn-fish-rice farming in Bangladesh to
promote social-ecological resilience. Rev. Aquac. 6, 20–35. https://doi.org/
10.1111/raq.12022.
Ahmed, N., Ward, J.D., Saint, C.P., 2014b. Can integrated aquaculture-agriculture (IAA)
produce "more crop per drop"? Food Secur. 6, 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12571-014-0394-9.
Akhteruzzaman, M., Gupta, M.V., Sollows, J.D., Kohinoor, A.H.M., 1994. Feasibility of
integrating aquaculture in rainfed ricefields and possible implications for integrated
pest management. In: ICLARM Conference Proceedings (Philippines). ICLARM.
Ali, A.B., 1990. Seasonal dynamics of microcrustacean and rotifer communities in
Malaysian rice fields used for rice-fish farming. Hydrobiologia. 206, 139–148.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00018640.
Ali, S., Niyaki, N., Allahyari, M.S., 2012. Logistic regression analysis on factors affecting
adoption of rice-fish farming in North Iran. Rice Sci. 19, 153–160. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S1672-6308(12)60034-1.
Baloch, M.S., Alizai, H.U.K., Baloch, A.K., Abdullah, K., 1997. Comparative studies of rice
fish culture and rice monoculture. Sci. Khyber (Pakistan). 10, 1–5. ISSN:1017–3471.
Bandyopadhyay, S., Puste, A.M., 2001. Effect of carp and fish feed on yield and soil
nutrient availability under integrated rice-fish culture. Asian Fish. Sci. 14, 437–441.
Barmon, B.K., Osanami, F., Kondo, T., 2007. Economic evaluation of rice-prawn gher
farming system on soil fertility for modern variety of rice production in Bangladesh.
Asia-Pacific J. Rural Develop. 17, 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1018529120070106.
Barmon, B.K., Kondo, T., Osanami, F., 2012. Impact of rice-prawn gher farming on
household income in Bangladesh: a case study of Khulna district. Japanese J. Farm
Manag. 43, 133–136. https://doi.org/10.11300/fmsj1963.43.1_133.
Bashir, M.A., Wang, H., Pan, J., Khoshnevisan, B., Sun, W., Zhai, L., Zhang, X., Wang, N.,
Rehim, A., Liu, H., 2021. Variations in soil nutrient dynamics and their composition
in rice under integrated rice-crab co-culture system. J. Clean. Prod. 281, 125222
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125222.
Berg, H., 2001. Pesticide use in rice and rice-fish farms in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam.
Crop Prot. 20, 897–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(01)00039-4.
Berg, H., 2002. Rice monoculture and integrated rice-fish farming in the Mekong Delta,
Vietnam—economic and ecological considerations. Ecol. Econ. 41, 95–107. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00027-7.
Berg, H., Berg, C., Nguyen, T.T., 2012. Integrated rice-fish farming: safeguarding
biodiversity and ecosystem services for sustainable food production in the Mekong
Delta. J. Sustain. Agric. 36, 859–872. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10440046.2012.712090.
Bhattacharyya, P., Sinhababu, D.P., Roy, K.S., Dash, P.K., Sahu, P.K., Dandapat, R.,
Neogi, S., Mohanty, S., 2013. Effect of fish species on methane and nitrous oxide
emission in relation to soil C, N pools and enzymatic activities in rainfed shallow
lowland rice-fish farming system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 176, 53–62. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.05.015.
Billah, M.M., Uddin, M.K., Samad, M.Y.A., Hassan, M.Z.B., Anwar, M.P., Talukder, I.,
Shahjahan, M., Haque, A.N.A., 2020. Impact of feeding schedule on the growth
performances of tilapia, common carp, and rice yield in an integrated rice-fish
farming system. Sustainability. 12, 8658. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208658.
Biswas, C.R., Chattopadhyay, G.N., Chakraborty, P.K., Bandejopadhyay, A.K., Ghosh, A.,
1987. Rice-based fish and vegetable cropping system in coastal saline soils [India].
Int. Rice Res. Newsletter (Philippines) 12, 53–54. ISSN : 0115-0944.
Bolay, F.K., Trpis, M., Davidson, E., Faust, R., Margalit, J., Tahori, A., 1990. Control of
mosquitoes with Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis and larvivorous fish, Tilapia
nilotica, in rice fields in Liberia West Africa. Isr. J. Entomol. 23, 77–82.
L. Yifan et al.
Bosma, R.H., Verdegem, M.C., 2011. Sustainable aquaculture in ponds: principles,
practices and limits. Livest. Sci. 139, 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
livsci.2011.03.017.
Bosma, R.H., Nhan, D.K., Udo, H.M.J., Kaymak, U., 2012. Factors affecting farmers’
adoption of integrated rice-fish farming systems in the Mekong delta, Vietnam. Rev.
Aquac. 4, 178–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-5131.2012.01069.x.
Boyd, C., Zimmermann, S., 2010. Grow-out systems-water quality and soil management.
In: New, Michael Bernard, Valenti, Wagner Cotroni, Tidwell, James H.,
D’Abramo, Louis R., Kutty, M.N. (Eds.), Freshwater Prawns: Biology and Farming,
pp. 221–238.
Bunting, S.W., Kundu, N., Ahmed, N., 2017. Evaluating the contribution of diversified
shrimp-rice agroecosystems in Bangladesh and West Bengal, India to social-
ecological resilience. Ocean Coast. Manag. 148, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2017.07.010.
Cagauan, A.G., Branckaert, R.D., Hove, C.V., 2000. Integrating fish and azolla into rice-
duck farming in Asia. Naga 23, 4–10. ISSN : 0125-0975X.
Cao Quoc, N., 2011. Evaluation of Rotational Rice-Fish Farming Systems and New Fish
Species for Concurrent Rice-Fish Culture in the Mekong Delta. Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, Vietnam.
Cao, C., Jiang, Y., Wang, J., Yuan, P., Chen, S., 2017. “Dual character” of rice-crayfish
culture and strategies for its sustainable development. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 25,
1245–1253 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Channabasavanna, A., Biradar, D., 2007. Relative performance of different rice-fish-
poultry integrated farming system models with respect to system productivity and
economics. Karnataka J. Agricult. Sci. 20, 706–709.
Che, Y., Cheng, S., Tian, J., Tao, Y., Liu, Q., Xing, Z., Dou, Z., Xu, Q., Hu, Y., Guo, B.,
Wei, H., Gao, H., Zhang, H., 2021. Characteristics and differences of rice yield,
quality, and economic benefits under different modes of comprehensive planting-
breeding in paddy fields. Acta Agron. Sin. 1–22 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Chen, S., Fan, Z., Chen, W., 2006. The relationship of respiratory rate and oxygen
consumption rate in common carp (Cyprinus (C.) Carpio haematopterus Temminck
et Schlegel) under different temperature. J. Northeast. Agric. Univ. 352–356 (in
Chinese with English Abstract).
Chen, H., Sha, Z., Wu, F., Fang, K., Xu, C., Yang, X., Zhu, Y., Cao, L., 2021a. Effects of
rice-frog cultivation on ammonia volatilization in rice-Chinese milk vetch rotation
system. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 1–12 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Chen, X., Sun, W., Yu, F., Li, Z., Yu, Y., Sun, F., 2021b. Effect of rice-crab co-culture
system on soil fertility and economic benefits. Chinese J. Soil Sci. 52, 1165–1172 (in
Chinese with English Abstract).
Chien, Y.H., Avault, J.W., 1980. Production of crayfish in rice fields. The Progress. Fish-
Culturist 42, 67–71.
Coche, A.G., 1967. Fish culture in rice fields a world-wide synthesis. Hydrobiologia. 30,
1–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00135009.
Cui, Y., Liu, W., 2018. Experimental report on rice-fish symbiotic ecological breeding in
Pingluo County of Ningxia in 2017. Fish. Guide to be Rich 67–69 (in Chinese).
Dabbadie, L., Mikolasek, O., 2017. Rice-fish farming in the Malagasy highlands, twenty
years after the FAO projects. FAO Aquacult. Newsletter. 56, 33–37.
Dadzie, S., 1992. An overview of aquaculture in eastern Africa. Hydrobiologia. 232,
99–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00014618.
Dai, J., Liang, Z., Qian, F., Wan, H., Xie, W., 2021. Effects of rice-shrimp co-culture mode
on soil bacterial and enzyme activities. Agricult. Henan 46–47 (in Chinese).
Dan, Z., Min, Q., Liu, M., Cheng, S., 2012. Ecosystem service tradeoff between traditional
and modern agriculture: a case study in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China.
Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 6, 743–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-011-0385-4.
Dartey, P., Bam, R., Ofori, J., 1999. Preliminary studies in rice-fish culture in a rainfed
lowland ecology in Ghana. Ghana. J. Agric. Sci. 32, 123–126. ISSN:0855–0042.
Das, D.N., 2002. Fish Farming in Rice Environments of North Eastern India. Aquaculture
Asia.
Datta, S.N., Tripathy, N.K., Rajamani, S., Rao, K.S., 1986. Yield of rice-fish cultivation at
Cuttack, India. Int. Rice Res. Newsletter (Philippines) 11, 37. ISSN : 0115-0944.
Datta, A., Nayak, D., Sinhababu, D., Adhya, T., 2009. Methane and nitrous oxide
emissions from an integrated rainfed rice-fish farming system of Eastern India. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 129, 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.09.003.
Degiovanni, V., Atencio, V.J., Charry, R.E., 2010. Rice-fish farming: A food security
alternative. In: B., V.D., R., C.P.M., O., F.M (Ed.), Producción eco-eficiente del arroz
en América Latina. CIAT Publication, Columbia, pp. 117–137 (in Spanish with
English Abstract).
Delphin, K.A., Noël, G., Seraphin, K.K., Parfait, N.G., Moreto, S., 2020. Impact of
agricultural by-products inputs to the juveniles of Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus,
1758) on phytoplankton diversity in rice-fish ponds (central west, Côte D’ivoire). Int.
J. Fish. Aquat. Stud. 8, 162–171.
Dey, M.M., Paraguas, F.J., Kambewa, P., Pemsl, D.E., 2010. The impact of integrated
aquaculture–agriculture on small-scale farms in Southern Malawi. Agric. Econ. 41,
67–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2009.00426.x.
Dey, M.M., Spielman, D.J., Haque, A.B.M.M., Rahman, M.S., Valmonte-Santos, R., 2013.
Change and diversity in smallholder rice–fish systems: recent evidence and policy
lessons from Bangladesh. Food Policy 43, 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodpol.2013.08.011.
Diallo, A., 2000. Status of fish stocks in Senegal. In: Abban, E.K., Casal, C.M.V., Falk, T.
M., Pullin, R.S.V. (Eds.), Biodiversity and Sustainable Use of Fish in the Coastal Zone.
WorldFish, pp. 38–40.
Ding, Z., Xu, X., Zhong, W., Yao, X., Xu, L., Wu, J., Yang, C., Hao, J., 2021. Application
test of comprehensive planting and raising technology of rice-crab in Tianjin area.
Sci. Fish Farm. 34–36 (in Chinese).
Dubois, M.J., Akester, M., Leemans, K., Teoh, S.J., Stuart, A., Thant, A.M., San, S.S.,
Shein, N., Leh, M., Moet, P.M., 2019. Integrating fish into irrigation infrastructure
14
Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554
projects in Myanmar: rice-fish what if…? Mar. Freshw. Res. 70, 1229–1240. https://
doi.org/10.1071/MF19182.
Dwiyana, E., Mendoza, T.C., 2006. Comparative productivity, profitability and efficiency
of rice monoculture and rice-fish culture systems. J. Sustain. Agric. 29, 145–166.
Encarnacion, R.L., 1985. Rice Seed Production in Various Farming Systems [Philippines].
The University of the Philippines.
FAOSTAT, 2018. FAO Statistical Databases. www.fao.org.
FAOSTAT, 2019. FAO Statistical Databases. www.fao.org.
Feng, W., 2019. Study on the ecological planting and breeding industry model of green
and efficient ’rice-shrimp co-cropping’ in southern Henan rice area. Agricult. Henan
53–55 (in Chinese).
Feng, G., Shen, F., Zhao, C., 2014. Discussion on rice-duck co-culture technology. North
Rice. 44, 53–54 (in Chinese).
Feng, J., Li, F., Zhou, X., Xu, C., Fang, F., 2016. Nutrient removal ability and economical
benefit of a rice-fish co-culture system in aquaculture pond. Ecol. Eng. 94, 315–319.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.06.002.
Feng, J.F., Liu, Y.B., Li, F.B., Zhou, X.Y., Xu, C.C., Fang, F.P., 2021. Effect of phosphorus
and potassium addition on greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient utilization of a
rice-fish co-culture system. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 38034–38042. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11356-020-12064-5.
Frei, M., Becker, K., 2005a. A greenhouse experiment on growth and yield effects in
integrated rice-fish culture. Aquaculture. 244, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aquaculture.2004.11.014.
Frei, M., Becker, K., 2005b. Integrated rice-fish culture: coupled production saves
resources. In: Natural Resources Forum. Wiley Online Library, pp. 135–143. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2005.00122.x.
Frei, M., Razzak, M.A., Hossain, M.M., Oehme, M., Becker, K., 2007. Methane emissions
and related physicochemical soil and water parameters in rice–fish systems in
Bangladesh. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 120, 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agee.2006.10.013.
Gao, H., Sha, Z., Wang, F., Fang, K., Dai, W., Yi, X., Cao, L., 2019. Nitrogen leakage in a
rice-duck co-culture system with different fertilizer treatments in China. Sci. Total
Environ. 686, 555–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.460.
Gao, H., Dai, W., Fang, K., Yi, X., Chen, N., Penttinen, P., Sha, Z., Cao, L., 2020. Rice-duck
co-culture integrated different fertilizers reduce P losses and Pb accumulation in
subtropical China. Chemosphere. 245, 125571 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2019.125571.
Gao, L., Li, H., Li, X., Bai, H., Zhang, H., 2021. High yield test of rice and shrimp
comprehensive breeding in Weihe River Beach of North Qinling Mountains.
J. Aquac. 42, 37–39 (in Chinese).
Gleick, P.H., 2003. Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions for the 21st century.
Science. 302, 1524–1528. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089967.
Guo, H., Qi, M., Hu, Z., Liu, Q., 2020. Optimization of the rice-fish coculture in Qingtian,
China: 1. Effects of rice spacing on the growth of the paddy fish and the chemical
composition of both rice and fish. Aquaculture. 522, 735106 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735106.
Haroon, A., 1998. Diet and feeding ecology of two sizes of Barbodes gonionotus
(=Puntius gonionotus) and Oreochromis sp. in ricefields in Bangladesh. Naga. 21,
13–19.
He, J., Wu, H., Feng, P., Chen, Z., Gan, X., Li, H., Kong, L., 2018. Comprehensive
cultivation technology of rice-snail. Agricult. Henan 50–51 (in Chinese).
He, J., Feng, P., Lv, C., Lv, M., Ruan, Z., Yang, H., Ma, H., Wang, R., 2020. Effect of a
fish–rice co-culture system on the growth performance and muscle quality of tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus). Aquacult. Rep. 17, 100367 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aqrep.2020.100367.
Hendrasih, S., Suriapermana, S., Fagi, A., Manwan, I., 1994. Potential of fish in rice-fish
culture as a biological control agent of rice pests. In: ICLARM Conference
Proceedings (Philippines).
Hora, S.L., 1962. Handbook of fish culture in the Indopacific region. FAO Fish. Biol.
Tech. Pap. 14, 1–203.
Hossain, S.T., Sugimoto, H., Ahmed, G., Islam, M.R., 2005. Effect of integrated rice-duck
farming on rice yield, farm productivity, and rice-provisioning ability of farmers.
Asian J. Agric. Dev. 2, 79–86.
Hu, Y., Wang, X., 2013. Rice-soft shell turtle cultivation technology. Sci. Fish Farm.
35–36 (in Chinese).
Hu, L., Ren, W., Tang, J., Li, N., Zhang, J., Chen, X., 2013. The productivity of traditional
rice–fish co-culture can be increased without increasing nitrogen loss to the
environment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 177, 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agee.2013.05.023.
Hu, L., Tang, J., Zhang, J., Ren, W., Guo, L., Halwart, M., Li, K., Zhu, Z., Qian, Y., Wu, M.,
Chen, X., 2015. Development of rice-fish system: today and tomorrow. Chin. J. Eco-
Agric. 23, 268–275 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Hu, L., Zhang, J., Ren, W., Guo, L., Cheng, Y., Li, J., Li, K., Zhu, Z., Zhang, J., Luo, S.,
Cheng, L., Tang, J., Chen, X., 2016. Can the co-cultivation of rice and fish help
sustain rice production? Sci. Rep. 6, 28728. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28728.
Hu, L.L., Guo, L., Zhao, L.F., Shi, X.Y., Ren, W.Z., Zhang, J., Tang, J.J., Chen, X., 2020.
Productivity and the complementary use of nitrogen in the coupled rice-crab system.
Agric. Syst. 178, 102742 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102742.
Huang, S., 2021. Benefit analysis of rice-fish symbiosis culture and its main technical
practices in Wuyi Mountain area. Hybrid Rice. 36, 46–49 (in Chinese with English
Abstract).
Huang, Y., Weng, B., Tang, J., Liu, Z., 2001. Effect of rice–azolla–fish system on soil
environment of rice field. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 84–86 (in Chinese with English
Abstract).
L. Yifan et al.
Huang, S.W., Wang, L., Liu, L.M., Fu, Q., Zhu, D.F., 2014. Nonchemical pest control in
China rice: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13593-013-0199-9.
Huang, Z., Zhou, K., Huang, W., Li, J., Liu, L., Pan, X., Li, Z., Deng, Y., 2019. Existing
problems and development strategies of comprehensive cultivation and raising of
rice fields in Hunan Province. Hunan Agricult. Sci. 114–117 (in Chinese with English
Abstract).
Huy Giap, D., Yi, Y., Kwei Lin, C., 2005. Effects of different fertilization and feeding
regimes on the production of integrated farming of rice and prawn Macrobrachium
rosenbergii (De man). Aquac. Res. 36, 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2109.2005.01244.x.
Jiang, Y., Cao, C., 2021. Crayfish–rice integrated system of production: an agriculture
success story in China. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 41, 1–14. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13593-021-00724-w.
Jiang, Y., Mao, Z., Xi, Y., Ye, S., Wang, F., Hou, G., Cheng, Y., Ji, S., Zhang, G., 2017.
Discussion on the construction of ecological integrated technologies of "internet of
things+rice-chinese soft shelled turtle-fish". Anhui Agricult. Sci. Bul. 23, 101–103 (in
Chinese with English Abstract).
Jiang, X., Jiang, M., Luo, D., Li, M., Ji, G., Li, L., Zhang, J., Zhou, W., 2021. Yield
characteristics and economic benefits of high-quality indica hybrid rice in rice and
fish fingerling composite system. Hybrid Rice. 36, 38–43 (in Chinese with English
Abstract).
Jin, J., Yan, Y., 2011. Technology of rice-snail co-cultivation in Korea. North Rice. 41,
43–44 (in Chinese).
Karapanagiotidis, I.T., Yakupitiyage, A., Little, D.C., Bell, M.V., Mente, E., 2010. The
nutritional value of lipids in various tropical aquatic animals from rice–fish farming
systems in Northeast Thailand. J. Food Compos. Anal. 23, 1–8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jfca.2009.08.001.
Kim, B.H., Kim, H., Kim, Y., 1992. Rice-fish farming systems and future prospects in
Korea. In: Dela Cruz, C.R., Lightfoot, C., Costa-Pierce, B.A., Carangal, V.R., P., B.M.
(Eds.), Rice-Fish Research and Development in Asia (WorldFish).
Koide, J., Fujimoto, N., Oka, N., Mostafa, H., 2015. Rice-fish integration in sub-Saharan
Africa: the challenges for participatory water management. Jpn. Agric. Res. Q. 49,
29–36. https://doi.org/10.6090/jarq.49.29.
Koseki, Y., 2014. Column: Rice-fish culture: The contemporary significance of a
traditional practice. In: Usio, N., Miyashita, T. (Eds.), Social-Ecological Restoration
in Paddy-Dominated Landscapes. Springer, Tokyo.
Kumar, S., Bhatt, B.P., Dey, A., Shivani, Kumar, Idris, M., Mishra, J.S., Kumar, S., 2018.
Integrated farming system in India: current status, scope and future prospects in
changing agricultural scenario. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 88, 1661–1675.
Kunda, M., Azim, M.E., Wahab, M.A., Dewan, S., Roos, N., Thilsted, S.H., 2008. Potential
of mixed culture of freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) and self-
recruiting small species mola (Amblypharyngodon mola) in rotational rice–fish/
prawn culture systems in Bangladesh. Aquac. Res. 39, 506–517. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.01905.x.
Lam, M.-L., 2006. Freshwater Prawn-Rice Culture: the Development of a Sustainable
System in the Mekong delta, Vietnam. Université de Namur, p. 159.
Lansing, J.S., Kremer, J.N., 2011. Rice, fish, and the planet. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
108, 19841–19842. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117707109.
Li, K., 1988. Rice-fish culture in China: a review. Aquaculture. 71, 173–186. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0044-8486(88)90257-8.
Li, K., 2018. Development situation and countermeasures of rice and fishery
comprehensive cultivation in Shandong Province. China Fish. 35–37 (in Chinese).
Li, K., Huang, H., Ren, Z., 2003. Technical demonstration and efficiency of rice-duck
agroecosystem and frequoscillation pest-killing lamp in Hunan. China Rice. 5, 35–37
(in Chinese with English Abstract).
Li, H., Xia, H., Xiong, Y., Zhang, X., 2007. Mechanism of greenhouse gases fluxes from
soil and its controlling factors: a review. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 1781–1788 (in Chinese
with English Abstract).
Li, C., Cao, C., Wang, J., Pan, S., Ye, C., Ye, W., Liu, K., Zeng, J., 2008. Dynamic
variations and losses of N in floodwater of paddy fields in integrated rice-duck and
rice-fish ecosystems. Acta Sci. Circumst. 2125–2132 (in Chinese with English
Abstract).
Li, F., Feng, J., Zhou, X., Xu, C., Haissam Jijakli, M., Zhang, W., Fang, F., 2019a. Impact
of rice-fish/shrimp co-culture on the N2O emission and NH3 volatilization in
intensive aquaculture ponds. Sci. Total Environ. 655, 284–291. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.440.
Li, F., Sun, Z., Qi, H., Zhou, X., Xu, C., Wu, D., Fang, F., Feng, J., Zhang, N., 2019b.
Effects of rice-fish co-culture on oxygen consumption in intensive aquaculture pond.
Rice Sci. 26, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsci.2018.12.004.
Li, M., Hei, Z., Li, R., Liu, S., Qiu, S., Zhang, J., 2019c. A combination of rice cultivar
mixed-cropping and duck co-culture suppressed weeds and pests in paddy fields.
Basic Appl. Ecol. 40, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2019.09.003.
Li, M., Li, R., Liu, S., Zhang, J.E., Luo, H., Qiu, S., 2019d. Rice-duck co-culture benefits
grain 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline accumulation and quality and yield enhancement of
fragrant rice. Crop J. 7, 419–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2019.02.002.
Li, M., Li, R., Zhang, J., Wu, T., Liu, S., Hei, Z., Qiu, S., 2020a. Effects of the integration of
mixed-cropping and rice-duck co-culture on rice yield and soil nutrients in southern
China. J. Sci. Food Agric. 100, 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10035.
Li, X., Tu, J., Chen, Z., Zhou, Q., Wang, H., Zhang, S., Cai, X., Chen, J., Zhou, N., 2020b.
Rice-frog planting and raising mode and its sustainable development strategy.
J. Agricult. 10, 98–103 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Liang, Y., Li, J., Zhou, J., Tang, C., Li, T., Liu, J., 2020. Analysis on development prospect
of rice-shrimp co-cultivation industry in Yuanjiang City. Prim. Agricult. Technol.
Extens. 8, 63–65 (in Chinese).
15
Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554
Liang, Z., Qin, G., Wan, H., Liu, X., Xiong, D., 2021. Effects of rice-shrimp ecological
breeding mode on rice quality and economic benefits. J. Aquac. 42, 42–45 (in
Chinese).
Lightfoot, C., Roger, P.A., Cagauan, A.G., Dela Cruz, C.R., 1990. A fish crop may improve
rice yields and ricefields. Naga. 13, 12–13.
Lin, K., Wu, J., 2020. Effect of introducing frogs and fish on soil phosphorus availability
dynamics and their relationship with rice yield in paddy fields. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56644-z.
Little, D.C., Surintaraseree, P., Innes-Taylor, N., 1996. Fish culture in rainfed rice fields of
Northeast Thailand. Aquaculture. 140, 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-
8486(95)01208-7.
Liu, P., Fang, Z., 2019. Analysis on the current situation and development environment
of rice-shrimp co-cultivation mode-based on the survey data of Jin’an district, Lu’an
City. J. West Anhui Univ. 35, 28–33 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Liu, H., Hussain, S., Peng, S., Huang, J., Cui, K., Nie, L., 2014. Potentially toxic elements
concentration in milled rice differ among various planting patterns. Field Crop Res.
168, 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.08.007.
Liu, B., Zhang, X., Li, H., 2018. Development trends and thoughts of comprehensive rice
and fishery cultivation in Henan Province. China Fish. 45–48 (in Chinese).
Liu, G., Huang, H., Jiangwei, Z., 2019. Energy analysis and economic assessment of a
rice-turtle-fish co-culture system. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 43, 299–309. https://
doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1510870.
Liu, D., Tang, R., Xie, J., Tian, J., Shi, R., Zhang, K., 2020. Valuation of ecosystem
services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 41,
101054 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101054.
Lu, J., Li, X., 2006. Review of rice–fish-farming systems in China-one of the globally
important ingenious agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS). Aquaculture. 260,
106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.05.059.
Lv, W., Zhou, W., Lu, S., Huang, W., Yuan, Q., Tian, M., Lv, W., He, D., 2019.
Microplastic pollution in rice-fish co-culture system: a report of three farmland
stations in Shanghai, China. Sci.Total Environ. 652, 1209–1218. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.321.
Ma, L., Dong, L., Zhang, R., Zhang, Y., Guo, J., Shang, W., Li, Y., 2021. Analysis on
photosynthetic characteristics and economic benefits of rice crab cultivation in
different modes. J. Northeast Agricult. Sci. 46, 1–6 (in Chinese with English
Abstract).
Magulama, E.E., 1990. Effect of Planting Pattern in Rice-Fish Production System.
University of Southern Mindanao.
Magulama, E.E., 1993. Effect of fish integration on yield and yield components of rice.
USM CA Res. J. (Philippines). 4, 39–45.
Marquez, E.B., 1988. Computer Simulation Model for Rice-Fish Water Management. The
University of the Philippines.
Mei, F., Wang, D., Rao, W., Tang, J., Zou, L., 2019. Technology and benefit analysis of
rice-shrimp co-culture in Huichang County. Modern Agricult. Sci. Technol. 187–189
(in Chinese).
Meng, X., Wu, W., 2002. New development of paddy farming in China. Chinese Fish.
Econom. 17–19 (in Chinese).
Miller, J., Atanda, T., Asala, G., Chen, W.H., 2006. Integrated irrigation-aquaculture
opportunities in Nigeria: the special programme for food security and rice-fish
farming in Nigeria. In: Halwart, M., Dam, A.A.V. (Eds.), Integrated Irrigation and
Aquaculture in West Africa: Concepts, Practices and Potential. FAO, Rome,
pp. 117–124.
Min, Z., 2019. Heavy Metals and Nutrition Assessment in co-Cultured Rice. Shanghai
Ocean University.
Ministry of Water Resources, P.R.C, 2020. China Water Statistical Yearbook.
Mohanty, R.K., Jena, S.K., Thakur, A.K., Patil, D.U., 2009. Impact of high-density
stocking and selective harvesting on yield and water productivity of Deepwater
rice–fish systems. Agric. Water Manag. 96, 1844–1850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agwat.2009.08.006.
Mridha, M., Hossain, M., Azad Shah, A., Uddin, M., Nahiduzzaman, M., 2014. Effects of
stocking density on production and economics of all-male tilapia (Oreochromis
niloticus) culture in a rain fed rice-fish ecosystem. J. Appl. Aquac. 26, 60–70.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10454438.2014.877744.
Nahvi, M., Azmodeh Mojdahi, M.R., Magidi, F., Attarian, A.M., Seiedi, S.A., 2009.
Evaluation of Fish Farming in Paddy Field and its Effect on Rice Varieties. Rice
Research Institute of Iran.
Nair, C.M., Salin, K.R., Joseph, J., Aneesh, B., New, M.B., 2014. Organic rice–prawn
farming yields 20% higher revenues. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 569–581. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13593-013-0188-z.
National Fisheries Technology Extension Center, C.S.o.F, 2019. China’s Integrated Rice
and Fishery Farming Industry Development Report (2018). China Fisheries,
pp. 20–27.
National Fisheries Technology Extension Center, C.S.o.F, 2020a. 2020 China Crayfish
Industry Development Report Released.
National Fisheries Technology Extension Center, C.S.o.F, 2020b. China’s Integrated Rice
and Fishery Farming Industry Development Report (2019). China Fisheries,
pp. 16–22.
National Fisheries Technology Extension Center, C.S.o.F, 2020c. China’s Integrated Rice
and Fishery Farming Industry Development Report (2020). China Fisheries,
pp. 12–19.
Nguyen-Khoa, S., Lorenzen, K., Garaway, C., 2003. Impacts of irrigation development on
capture fisheries in the rice-based farming systems of Southern Laos. In: Large Rivers
Symposium (LARS2), Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Nhan, D.K., Duong, L.T., Rothuis, A., 1997. Rice-fish farming systems research in the
Vietnamese Mekong Delta: identification of constraints. Naga. 20, 107–111.
L. Yifan et al.
Noble, R.L., 1975. Growth of young yellow perch (Perca flavescens) in relation to
zooplankton populations. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 104, 731–741. https://doi.org/
10.1577/1548-8659(1975)104<731:GOYYPP>2.0.CO;2.
Ofori, J., Abban, E.K., Otoo, E., Wakatsuki, T., 2005. Rice–fish culture: an option for
smallholder Sawah rice farmers of the west African lowlands. Ecol. Eng. 24,
233–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2004.12.017.
Olambla, I.O., 2012. Growth and Production of the African Catfish, clarias gariepinus in
Integrated Rice-Fish Culture Systems in Nyando District. Kenyatta University, Kenya.
Olapade, O., 2015. Economic assessment of integrated fish farming (fish-rice-piggery) in
Sierra Leone. Agricult. For. Fish. 4, 87–94. http://agriff.org/article/119/10.11648.j.
aff.20150403.12.
Onoh, A.L., Onoh, C.C., Onoh, P.A., Ukpongson, M.T., 2020. Adoption of integrated rice-
fish farming technology in Ebonyi state Nigeria: socio-demographic characteristics
and availability of technology. Asian J. Fish. Aquatic Res. 7, 29–38. https://doi.org/
10.9734/ajfar/2020/v7i230116.
Oo, K.M., 1993. Safe use of pesticides in rice-fish culture. In: Naga, the ICLARM
Quarterly, pp. 23–25.
Pirdashti, H., Pirdashti, M., Mohammadi, M., Baigi, M.G., Movagharnejad, K., 2015.
Efficient use of energy through organic rice–duck mutualism system. Agron. Sustain.
Dev. 35, 1489–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0311-4.
Purba, S., 1998. The Economics of Rice-Fish Production Systems in North Sumatra,
Indonesia: An Empirical and Model Analysis. Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk.
Qiang, R., Hong, M., Wang, J., Ye, Y., 2016. Effect of several planting and breeding
patterns on main diseases, pests and weeds occurrence in rice fields. J. Agricult.
Catastrophol. 6, 7–9 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Qiao, R., Liu, Z., Gong, Y., 2018. Status and prospect of rice planting in Shanxi Province.
China Agricult. Technol. Extens. 34, 5–6 (in Chinese).
Qu, Z., Tian, J., Yan, X., 2021. Optimizing water depth, fertilizer topdressing, crab
density and feed quantity for rice-crab farming. J. Irrig. Drain. 40, 51–58 (in Chinese
with English Abstract).
Rasowo, J., Auma, E., Asiyo, S., Ndunguru, M., 2008. Does African catfish (Clarias
gariepinus) affect rice in integrated rice-fish culture in Lake Victoria Basin, Kenya?
Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2, 336–341.
Ruddle, K., 1982. Traditional integrated farming systems and rural development: the
example of ricefield fisheries in Southeast Asia. Agric. Adm. 10, 1–11. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0309-586X(82)90036-X.
Salam, M.A., Ross, L.G., Beveridge, C.M., 2003. A comparison of development
opportunities for crab and shrimp aquaculture in southwestern Bangladesh, using
GIS modelling. Aquaculture. 220, 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486
(02)00619-1.
Sanni, D., Juanich, G., 2006. A feasibility study of rice-fish farming in Western Africa. In:
Halwart, M., Dam, A.A.V. (Eds.), Integrated Irrigation and Aquaculture in West
Africa: Concepts, Practices and Potential. FAO, Rome, pp. 75–78.
Simon, D., Benhamou, J.F., 2009. Rice-fish farming in Guinée Forestière-outcome of a
rural development project. Field Act. Sci. Rep. 2, 49–56.
Sollows, J.D., Tongpan, N., 1986. Comparative economics of rice-fish culture and rice
monoculture in Ubon Province, Northeast Thailand. In: Maclean, J., Dizon, L.,
Hosillos, L. (Eds.), The First Asian Fisheries Forum. Asian Fisheries Society Manila,
Philippines, pp. 149–152.
Sousa, A.M.B.D., Santos, R.R.S., Moraes, F.H.R., Gehring, C., 2012. Exploring the
potential for sustainable weed control with integrated rice− fish culture for
smallholder irrigated rice agriculture in the Maranhão Lowlands of Amazonia.
Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 27, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S174217051100024X.
Suloma, A., 2006. Future of Rice-fish culture, desert aquaculture and feed development
in Africa: the case of Egypt as the leading country in Africa. Jpn. Agric. Res. Q. 40,
351–360. https://doi.org/10.6090/jarq.40.351.
Suriapermana, S., Syamsiah, I., 1995. Research methodology for rice-fish-duck systems.
In: IRRI Discussion Paper Series (Philippines), pp. 463–471.
Tang, J., Li, W., Lu, X., Wang, Y., Ding, X., Jiang, J., Tang, Y., Li, J., Zhang, J., Du, J.,
You, Y., Li, X., Li, B., Cheng, Y., Dou, Z., Gao, H., Chen, X., 2020. Development status
and rethinking of the integrated rice-fish system in China. China Rice. 26, 1–10 (in
Chinese with English Abstract).
Thien, N., Brussels, D.O.M., Quoc, N.C., Tuyen, D.X., Symoens, J.J., Micha, J.C., 1995.
The Integration of Agriculture and Fish Farming in Vietnam (Duck-Rice, Rice-Fish,
Duck-Fish-Rice Culture Rotation).
Tie, G., Peng, C., Xu, X., Zhao, S., Xu, D., Yuan, J., Jia, P., Liu, J., 2016. Effects of rice-
crayfish integrated mode on soil microbial functional diversity and fertility in
waterlogged paddy field. Soils. 48, 503–509 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Van Dam, A., 1990. Multiple regression analysis of accumulated data from aquaculture
experiments: a rice-fish culture example. Aquac. Res. 21, 1–15. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-2109.1990.tb00377.x.
Verdegem, M., Bosma, R.H., 2009. Water withdrawal for brackish and inland
aquaculture, and options to produce more fish in ponds with present water use.
Water Policy 11, 52–68. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2009.003.
Viosca, H., 1953. All about crawfish: life history and habits. Louisiana Conservat. 5, 3–5.
vNiaré, T., Kalossi, M., 2014. Rice-fish culture in Mali: practices and prospects of
piscicultural innovation. Tropicultura 32, 121–128 (in French with Abstract).
Wagle, S.K., Mulmi, R.M., Gurung, T.B., Lamsal, G.P., 2005. Fertility and productivity of
ricefield for integrated rice-fish farming in mid-hills of Nepal. J. Nat. Hist. Mus. 22,
1–21.
Wahab, M.A., Kunda, M., Azim, M.E., Dewan, S., Thilsted, S.H., 2008. Evaluation of
freshwater prawn-small fish culture concurrently with rice in Bangladesh. Aquac.
Res. 39, 1524–1532. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.02025.x.
Wan, N., Li, S., Li, T., Cavalieri, A., Weiner, J., Zheng, X., Ji, X., Zhang, J., Zhang, H.,
Zhang, H., Bai, N., Chen, Y., Zhang, H., Tao, X., Zhang, H., Lv, W., Jiang, J., Li, B.,
16
Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554
2019. Ecological intensification of rice production through rice-fish co-culture.
J. Clean. Prod. 234, 1002–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.238.
Wang, X., 2010. Rice-Snail Breeding Technology in Alpine Region. Shanghai Agricultural
Science and Technology, pp. 84–85 (in Chinese).
Wang, Q., 2018. Development status and countermeasures of rice-fishery integrated
breeding in mountainous areas of Southern Anhui. Prim. Agricult. Technol. Extens.
6, 70–72 (in Chinese).
Wang, Q., Huang, P., Zhen, R., Jing, L., Tang, H., Zhang, C., 2004. Effect of rice–duck
mutualism on nutrition ecology of paddy field and rice quality. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol.
15, 639–645 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Wang, H., Chen, J., Wang, Y., 2014. Development and countermeasures of rice-
aquaculture coupling technology in Huzhou. J. Zhejiang Agricult. Sci. 127–130 (in
Chinese).
Wang, X., Yan, S., Bu, L., Li, W., Yang, Y., 2018. Demonstration of ecological breeding of
Chinese turtle in paddy fields in southern Shaanxi province. China Fish. 106–108 (in
Chinese).
Wang, Q., Li, M., Zhang, J., Tang, J., Zeng, W., Lei, Z., Yang, Q., Jiang, M., Wu, J.,
Luo, M., 2021. Effects of rice-fish co-culture on chlorophyll fluorescence
characteristics and yield in rice. Crops 145–151 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Wei, Y., Quan, Y., Li, R., Peng, Y., 2019. Key points of ecological comprehensive
cultivation technique of rice-chinese mystery snail in Longwei district. Rural Sci.
Technol. 102–103 (in Chinese).
Weimin, M., 2010. Recent developments in rice-fish culture in China: A holistic approach
for livelihood improvement in rural areas. In: Silva, S.S.D., Davy, F.B. (Eds.), Success
Stories in Asian Aquaculture. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 15–40.
Williams, D., Alam, R., Noble, F., 2004. Integrated rice-fish-prawn systems in
Bangladesh. In: Sustainable Aquatic Resources are More than Managing Fish, Penag,
Malaysia available at. http://www.gnaec.org/pdf.
Wu, H., 2018. Study on ecological model of rice-snail integrated breeding. Sci. Fish Farm.
43–44 (in Chinese).
Wu, Y., Wang, X., Meng, T., Zhao, Y., Ren, D., Zhang, X., Wang, S., Li, W., 2021a.
Development status and countermeasures of rice-fishery integrated breeding
industry in Hanzhong City. Anhui Agricult. Sci. Bul. 27, 81–84 (in Chinese).
Wu, Z., Xu, X., Teng, H., Guo, M., Xu, H., 2021b. The problems and solutions of
integrated Rice-crayfish farming system in Anhui Province. J. Yunnan Agricult. Univ.
Soc. Sci. 15, 84–88 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Xi, Y., 2021. Comprehensive cultivation and benefit analysis of rice crab. In: Yunnan
Agriculture, pp. 73–74 (in Chinese).
Xia, F., Sun, J., Huang, H., 2019. Research progress and application advantages of paddy
field chicken raising. Crop. Res. 33, 366–369 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Xie, J., Wu, X., Tang, J.-J., Zhang, J.-E., Luo, S.-M., Chen, X., 2011. Conservation of
traditional rice varieties in a globally important agricultural heritage system
(GIAHS): rice-fish co-culture. Agric. Sci. China 10, 754–761. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S1671-2927(11)60059-X.
Xu, C., Chen, S., 2018. Development of rice and shrimp comprehensive cultivation in
Hubei Province. China Fish. 52–54 (in Chinese).
Yan, Y., Liu, M., Yang, D., Zhang, W., An, H., Wang, Y., Xie, H., Zhang, X., 2014. Effect of
different rice-crab coculture modes on soil carbohydrates. J. Integr. Agric. 13,
641–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(13)60722-4.
Yang, G., 2001. The process and driving forces of change in arable-land area in the
Yangtze River Delta during the past 50 years. J. Nat. Res. 121–127 (in Chinese with
English Abstract).
Yang, J., Dong, X., Qi, B., 2012. Ecological co-cultivation experiment of rice and crab in
Xinjiang. Sci. Fish Farm. 34–35 (in Chinese).
Yang, L., He, H., He, D., Xu, J., 2015. Research on creative agriculture model of turtle
industry in Qingxi, Zhejiang. J. Zhejiang Agricul. Sci. 56, 419–424 (in Chinese).
Yao, X., 2019. Demonstration Test of Integrated Rice-Fish Cultivation Technology in
Lincang City. Rural Practical Technology, pp. 51–52 (in Chinese).
Ye, H., 2014. Analysis on ecological cultivation mode of raising fish，turtle，loach and
crayfish in paddy fields of Fujian mountain area. J. Fish. Res. 36, 391–397 (in
Chinese with English Abstract).
Yi, C., 2015. ’Three-level linkage’ paddy field comprehensive cultivation in Hubei
Province. Fish. Guide to be Rich 4–5 (in Chinese).
Yisa, T., Adeyemi, R., Ibrahim, I., 2011. Evaluation of diversity index of fish fauna in a
lowland rice field in Southern Guinea Savannah of Northern Nigeria. Int. J. Sci. Nat.
2, 809–812.
Yuan, W., Cao, C., Li, C., Zhan, M., Cai, M., Wang, J., 2009. Methane and nitrous oxide
emissions from rice-fish and rice-duck complex ecosystems and the evaluation of
their economic significance. Sci. Agric. Sin. 42, 2052–2060 (in Chinese with English
Abstract).
Yuan, Q., Lu, W., Huang, W., Sun, X., Lu, W., Zhou, W., 2020. Effects of different
fertilization rates on the growth of loach and rice yield in rice-loach culture system.
Acta Agric. Shanghai 36, 17–22 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Zeng, Y., Wang, S., 2006. Analysis on the history of rice-fish system development and its
causes—taking the case of Guizhou as an example. J. Nanjing Agricult. Univer.
(Social Sciences Edition), 3, 79–83 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Zhang, K., 2019. Integrated rice-turtle breeding technology. Henan Fish. 15–16 (in
Chinese with English Abstract).
Zhang, L., 2020. Investigation report on the development of rice and fishery
comprehensive cultivation in Heilongjiang Province. Northern Chinese Fish. 39, 1–3
(in Chinese).
Zhang, Z., Li, Z., 2019. Development status of rice-fishery comprehensive breeding in
Heilongjiang Province and main countermeasures for high quality development.
North. Chinese Fish. 1–4 (in Chinese).
Zhang, J., Wang, G., Huang, W., Zhu, L., Kou, X., Wang, S., Han, G., Xu, R., 2017.
Innovative model and key techniques of ecological planting and breeding in paddy
L. Yifan et al.
field in Jiangsu Lixiahe area. Hunan Agricult. Sci. 77–80 (in Chinese with English
Abstract).
Zhang, S., Liu, P., Wen, Z., Zhou, Z., Liu, X., Duan, P., 2018. SWOT analysis and
sustainable development strategy research based on rice-shrimp co-culture model.
China Fish. 57–61 (in Chinese).
Zhao, Y., Zhang, J., 2017. Fertilizer reduction and efficiency increase of rice-shrimp co-
cultivation by using fertilizer and water resources in Guannan County. The Farmers
Consultant 60–61 (in Chinese).
Zhao, J., Yang, Q., Xie, K., Wu, C., Jiang, G., Li, X., Hu, B., Guo, L., 2019. Analysis of
ecological benefit of “rice-duck farming” model and its economic benefit in
ecological farm. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 21, 149–156 (in Chinese with English
Abstract).
17
Agricultural Systems 204 (2023) 103554
Zheng, W., Chen, D., Fang, C., Gu, S., Wang, M., Guo, C., Gao, F., Li, Q., Huang, C., 2018.
Ecological model experiment of rice-fishery co-culture under photovoltaic condition
in funing. J. Aquac. 39, 10–12 (in Chinese).
Zhou, W., Yu, Y., Zhang, F., Zeng, G., 2012. Rice-turtle symbiotic ecological farming. Sci.
Fish Farm. 36 (in Chinese).
Zhou, A., Liu, C., Xu, G., Huang, Y., 2014. Discussion of efficient and ecological rice
turtle symbiosis planting pattern. China Rice. 20, 73–74 (in Chinese with English
Abstract).
Zhou, J., Huang, H., Chen, C., Weekly, D., Long, B., Yang, F., Wang, R., Lu, G., Wu, J.,
2019. Benefit analysis and development prospect of rice-snail ecological planting
and breeding model. Crop. Res. 33, 437–442 (in Chinese with English Abstract).