IJE  >> Vol. 6 No. 2 (May 2017)

    地方农田生态系统价值动态评价——以2008~2014年河南省安阳市为例
    A Dynamic Evaluation of Agro-Ecosystem at Local Levels—Using Anyang City, Henan Province 2008-2014 as an Example

  • 全文下载: PDF(486KB) HTML   XML   PP.49-60   DOI: 10.12677/IJE.2017.62006  
  • 下载量: 284  浏览量: 595   科研立项经费支持

作者:  

郜飞虎,王宜成:青岛农业大学资源与环境学院,山东 青岛;
赵晓帅:山东省邹平县环保局,山东 邹平;
张晓光:青岛农业大学资源与环境学院,山东 青岛;土壤与农业可持续发展国家重点实验室,江苏 南京;
李士美:青岛农业大学园林与林学院,山东 青岛

关键词:
农田生态系统正效应负效应动态评价安阳市Agro-Ecosystems Positive Effect Negative Effect Dynamic Evaluation Anyang City

摘要:

目前农田生态系统价值评价较多关注大尺度空间区域,地方上的动态评价很少,县市等地方政府制定农业资源管理等政策时缺少数据支撑。本文使用文献调查法获得河南省安阳市2008~2014有关数据,基于农田生态系统正负效应评价法核算了安阳市这七年农田生态系统提供的正效应和负效应价值,分析了动态变化,其中正效应包括农产品生产、社会保障、土壤保持、土壤固碳、光合作用释氧、净化大气以及维持营养物质循环,负效应包括地下水资源消耗、温室气体排放、地膜污染、农药损失和化肥流失。结果显示,安阳市农田生态系统正效应价值以约10 × 108元/年的速度增长,2014年接近760 × 108元,其中农产品生产的价值最大,约占33%,而土壤固碳等非生产性价值是主体,占总价值近67%;负效应价值基本趋势也是逐年增长,2014年约为83×108元,负效应以地下水消耗为主,占72%以上,其次是温室气体排放,约占13%。正负效应之差呈增大趋势,2014年为676 × 108元。论文为安阳市相关农业政策的制定提供了重要的数据和信息基础,为我国其他地方农田生态系统价值评价提供了参考范例。

The research on agro-ecosystem evaluation so far has largely been focusing on large-scale areas such as north China or even the whole China territory; little attention has been paid to local city or county levels, less to dynamic changes of agro-ecosystem values over time. This has become an inconvenience when it comes to make a policy about agro-ecosystem due to the lack of relevant data or information. In this paper, we evaluated the positive and negative effects of the agro-eco- system on a local city level, using Anyang city of Henan province as an example, and we did a dynamic analysis on the changes of agro-ecosystem value for the years of 2008-2014. We carried out the evaluations of positive and negative effects by using modified methods used in other studies, based on data collected from official Henan Yearbooks of these years. The positive effects include agricultural production, social security, soil conservation, soil carbon fixation, photosynthesis oxygen release, air cleaning, and nutrients cycling, and the negative effects include underground water consumption, greenhouse gas emission, mulching film pollution, pesticide pollution, and fertilizer loss. Results showed that the positive effects value of Anyang agro-ecosystem increased about 1 billion yuan per year, reaching 76 billion yuan in 2014. Agricultural production value is the biggest part, about 33 percent of the total positive value, while the nonproduction values, including soil carbon fixation, nutrients cycling and photosynthesis oxygen release, were the major value component, about 67% of the total positive value. Negative value showed a similar trend of increase, reaching 8.3 billion yuan in the year of 2014. The major component of negative values was underground water consumption, which was more than 72% of total negative effect value, followed by greenhouse gas emission which is about 13%. The gap between positive and negative values, namely the net value of agro-ecosystem, increased over these years, reaching about 67.6 billion in 2014. These findings provided important base data and information to decision-makings related to agricultural ecosystem management in Anyang city; it also offers a methodological framework for agro-ecosystem evaluation in other local areas in China.

文章引用:
郜飞虎, 赵晓帅, 张晓光, 李士美, 王宜成. 地方农田生态系统价值动态评价——以2008~2014年河南省安阳市为例[J]. 世界生态学, 2017, 6(2): 49-60. https://doi.org/10.12677/IJE.2017.62006

参考文献

[1] 谢高地, 肖玉. 农田生态系统服务及其价值的研究进展[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2013, 21(6): 645-651.
[2] Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., Groot, R. D., et al. (1997) The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature, 387, 253-260.
https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
[3] Kinzig, A.P., Perrings, C., Chapin III, F.S., et al. (2011) Paying for Ecosystem Services—Promise and Peril. Science, 334, 603-604.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210297
[4] Daily, G.C. and Matson, P.A. (2008) Ecosystem Services: From Theory to Implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 9455-9456.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804960105
[5] Zhang, W., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., et al. (2007) Ecosystem Services and Dis-Services to Agriculture. Ecological Economics, 64, 253-260.
[6] Foley, J.A., Defries, R., Asner, G.P., et al. (2005) Global Consequences of Land Use. Science, 309, 570-574.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772
[7] 元媛, 刘金铜, 靳占忠. 栾城县农田生态系统服务功能正负效应综合评价[J]. 生态学杂志, 2011, 30(12): 2809- 2814.
[8] 杨志新. 北京郊区农田生态系统正负效应价值的综合评价研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2006: 15-20.
[9] 刘鸣达, 黄晓姗, 张玉龙, 等. 农田生态系统服务功能研究进展[J]. 生态环境, 2008, 17(2): 834-838.
[10] 孙新章, 周海林, 谢高地. 中国农田生态系统的服务功能及其经济价值[J]. 中国人口∙资源与环境, 2007, 17(4): 55-60.
[11] 陈宇, 李子轩, 齐建怀, 等. 漳卫河流域山区土壤侵蚀强度变化特征分析[J]. 海河水利, 2013(6): 20-22.
[12] 张晓勇. 安阳市土壤养分现状分析[J]. 河南农业, 2014(3): 24-25+27.
[13] 肖玉, 谢高地, 安凯, 等. 华北平原小麦-玉米农田生态系统服务评价[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2011, 19(2): 429- 435.
[14] 田耀武, 王建东, 张世平. 郑州西南绕城高速公路不同时期生态系统服务价值研究[J]. 中南公路工程, 2006, 31(3): 81-85.
[15] 隋鹏, 陈素英, 陈源泉, 等. 黄淮海地下水亏水区农业生产用水生态代价评估——以河北省栾城县为例[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2007, 15(5): 178-181.
[16] 白杨, 欧阳志云, 郑华, 等. 海河流域农田生态系统环境损益分析[J]. 应用生态学报, 2010, 21(11): 2938-2945.
[17] 李慧. 我国化肥利用率提高2.2个百分点[EB/OL]. 光明日报. http://epaper.gmw.cn/gmrb/html/2015-12/03/nw.D110000gmrb_20151203_3-08.htm, 2015-12-03.
[18] 梁龙, 陈源泉, 高旺盛, 等. 华北平原冬小麦-夏玉米种植系统生命周期环境影响评价[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2009, 28(8): 1773-1776.
[19] 马凤娇, 刘金铜. 基于能值分析的农田生态系统服务评估——以河北省栾城县为例[J]. 资源科学, 2014, 36(9): 1949-1957.
[20] 段华平, 张悦, 赵建波, 等. 中国农田生态系统的碳足迹分析[J]. 水土保持学报, 2011, 25(5): 203-208.
[21] 刘光栋, 吴文良, 刘仲兰, 等. 华北农业高产粮区地下水面源污染特征及环境影响研究——以山东省桓台县为例[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2005, 13(2): 125-129.