Application analysis of the ecological value of agricultural lands in the upper Yongding River Basin

• Autorzy: Zang W. , Fu Y. , Zhang J. , Shi W. , Qian Z. , Guo W. , Liu L.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The value of agro-ecosystem services is closely related to crop yield. As a production input component in an agro-ecosystem, agro-ecosystem services have practical value. It is generally believed that agro-ecosystem services are substitutes for purchase investment and can decrease agricultural production costs. Crop yield increases may negatively affect agro-ecosystem protection, and conversely, agro-ecosystem protection may result in crop yield reductions. Based on the established production model of agro-ecosystems, we determined the reasonable substitutive conditions and production outputs, and we quantitatively studied the ratio of the land area for agricultural production to that for ecosystem services. With the upper Yongding River Basin in China as the study area, we calculated agricultural yield elasticity and concluded that the corresponding crop yield would be reduced by 2.7% when the land area for ecosystem services in the basin increased by 1.0%. At present, the ecological service value of the Yongding River Basin showed an increasing trend.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: 28
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.943-951,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Zang W.

• State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of River Basin Water Cycle, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing, China

autor

Fu Y.

• State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of River Basin Water Cycle, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing, China

autor

Zhang J.

• State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of River Basin Water Cycle, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing, China

autor

Shi W.

• State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of River Basin Water Cycle, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing, China

autor

Qian Z.

• Hunan Province Hydro and Power Design Institute, Changsha Hunan, China

autor

Guo W.

• Yellow River Institute of Science, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou, Henan, China

autor

Liu L.

• State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of River Basin Water Cycle, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing, China

Bibliografia

• 1. LIU Y.H., HUANG S.L., CHEN J.H. Study on the ecosystem-based management for the international river basin. J. Fish China 32, 125, 2008.
• 2. PING F., TANG X.B., GAO S.T. A comparative study of the atmospheric circulations associated with rainy-season floods between the Yangtze and Huaihe River Basins. Science China-Earth Sciences 57, 1464, 2014.
• 3. BENNETT E.M., CRAMER W., BEGOSSI A., CUNDILL G., DÍAZ S., EGOH B.N., GEIJZENDORFFER I.R., KRUG C.B., LAVOREL S., LAZOS E., LEBEL L. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14, 76, 2015.
• 4. SUN N.L., GONG Q.W., ZHANG J.B. Calculation of the value of agro-ecosystems in Shandong Province. China Popul Resour Environ. 21, 128, 2011.
• 5. PEARCE D. Paradoxes in biodiversity conservation. World Econ. 6, 57, 2005.
• 6. RICKETTS, T.H., DAILY, G.C., EHRLICH, P.R., and MICHENER, C.D. Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production. Proc Nalt Acad Sci. 101, 12579, 2004.
• 7. COSTANZA R., PÉREZ-MAQUEO O., MARTINEZ M.L., SUTTON P., ANDERSON S.J., MULDER K. The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. Ambio 37, 241, 2008.
• 8. FU Y.C., RUAN B.Q., ZHANG C.L., XU F.R. Yongding River Basin water environmental restoration cost. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment 10, 876, 2012.
• 9. FU Y.C., RUAN B.Q., GAO T. Watershed Agricultural Non-point source pollution management. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 22, 367, 2013.
• 10. SIMPSON R.D. Ecosystem services as substitute inputs: basic results and important implications for conservation policy. Ecol Econ. 98, 102, 2014.
• 11. DÍAZ S., DEMISSEW S., CARABIAS J., JOLY C., LONSDALE M., ASH N., LARIGAUDERIE A., ADHIKARI J.R., ARICO S., BALDI A. The IPBES conceptual framework connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14, 1, 2015.
• 12. SCHOLES R.J., REYERS B., BIGGS R., SPIERENBURG M.J., and DURIAPPAH, A. Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of social - ecological systems and their ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5, 16, 2013.
• 13. DURAIAPPAH A.K., ASAH S.T., BRONDIZIO E.S., KOSOY N., O’FARRELL P.J., PRIEUR-RICHARD A.H., SUBRAMANIAN S.M., TAKEUCHI K. Managing the mismatches to provide ecosystem services for human wellbeing: a conceptual framework for understanding the New Commons. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 7, 94, 2014.
• 14. POWER A.G. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 365, 2959, 2010.
• 15. DAILY, G.C. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington: Island Press.
• 16. POLLAN, M. The omnivore’s dilemma: A natural history of four meals. New York: Penguin. 1997.
• 17. HEBERLING M.T., GARCÍA J.H., THURSTON H.W. Does encouraging the use of wetlands in water quality trading programs make economic sense? Ecol Econ. 69, 1988, 2010.
• 18. MAYER P.M., REYNOLDS S.K., MCCUTCHEN M.D., CANFIELD T.J. Meta-analysis of nitrogen removal in riparian buffers. J Environ Qual. 36, 1172, 2007.
• 19. WOSSINK A., SWINTON S.M. Jointness in production and farmers’ willingness to supply non-marketed ecosystem services. Ecol Econ. 64, 297, 2007.
• 20. ABLER D. Multifunctionality, agricultural policy, and environmental policy. J Agric Res Econ. 33, 8, 2004.
• 21. INKOOM J.N., FRANK S., GREVE K., FURST C. A framework to assess landscape structural capacity to provide regulating ecosystem services in West Africa. Journal of environmental management 209, 393, 2018.
• 22. ZHANG J., FU Y.C., SHI W.L., GUO W.X. A method for estimating watershed restoration feasibility under different treatment levels. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply 17, 1232, 2017.
• 23. WU J. Slippage effects of the conservation reserve program. Am J Agric Econ. 82, 979, 2000.
• 24. MARTIN-GUAY M.O., PAQUETTE A., DUPRAS J., and RIVEST, D. The new Green Revolution: Sustainable intensification of agriculture by intercropping. Science of the total environment 615, 767, 2018.
• 25. GUO W.X., FU Y.C., RUAN B.Q., GE H.F., ZHAO N.N. Agricultural non-point source pollution in the Yongding River Basin. Ecological Indicators 36, 254, 2014.
• 26. FU Y.C., DU X., RUAN B.Q., LIU L.S., ZHANG J. Agro-ecological compensation of watershed based on emergy. Water Science and Technology, 76, 2830, 2017.
• 27. VINCENT J.R., BINKLEY C.S. Efficient multiple-use forestry may require land-use specialization. Land Econ. 69, 370, 1993.
• 28. XIE G.D., ZHEN L., LU C.X. Applying value transfer method for eco-service valuation in China. J Res Ecol. 1, 51, 2010.
• 29. FU Y.C., ZHANG J., ZHANG C.L., ZANG W.B., GUO W.X., QIAN Z., LIU L.S., ZHAO J.Y., FENG J. Payments for Ecosystem Services for watershed water resource allocations. Journal of Hydrology, 556, 689, 2018.
• 30. FU Y.C., GAO T., YAN L.J. Agro-ecological compensation standard based on emergy analysis in Yongding River basin. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering 29, 209, 2013.
• 31. FARLEY J., COSTANZA R. Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecol Econ. 69, 2060, 2010.
• 32. ZHAO Y., GONG Z. Analysis of land cover change and its driving force in downstream of Yongding River. Journal of Natural Disasters, 21, 5, 2012.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15244/pjoes/85219