Full Text:   <880>

Summary:  <368>

CLC number: F062.2; S344.9

On-line Access: 2016-08-04

Received: 2015-06-24

Revision Accepted: 2015-11-09

Crosschecked: 2016-07-13

Cited: 0

Clicked: 1898

Citations:  Bibtex RefMan EndNote GB/T7714

 ORCID:

Fa-chun Guan

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6792-8300

-   Go to

Article info.
Open peer comments

Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B 2016 Vol.17 No.8 P.628-639

http://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1500154


Emergy assessment of three home courtyard agriculture production systems in Tibet Autonomous Region, China


Author(s):  Fa-chun Guan, Zhi-peng Sha, Yu-yang Zhang, Jun-feng Wang, Chao Wang

Affiliation(s):  Agriculture and Animal Husbandry College, Tibet University, Nyingchi 860000, China; more

Corresponding email(s):   guanfachun@163.com

Key Words:  Home courtyard agriculture, Raising Geese in Corn Field, Conventional Corn Planting, Pea-Wheat Rotation, Emergy, Sustainability


Fa-chun Guan, Zhi-peng Sha, Yu-yang Zhang, Jun-feng Wang, Chao Wang. Emergy assessment of three home courtyard agriculture production systems in Tibet Autonomous Region, China[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University Science B, 2016, 17(8): 628-639.

@article{title="Emergy assessment of three home courtyard agriculture production systems in Tibet Autonomous Region, China",
author="Fa-chun Guan, Zhi-peng Sha, Yu-yang Zhang, Jun-feng Wang, Chao Wang",
journal="Journal of Zhejiang University Science B",
volume="17",
number="8",
pages="628-639",
year="2016",
publisher="Zhejiang University Press & Springer",
doi="10.1631/jzus.B1500154"
}

%0 Journal Article
%T Emergy assessment of three home courtyard agriculture production systems in Tibet Autonomous Region, China
%A Fa-chun Guan
%A Zhi-peng Sha
%A Yu-yang Zhang
%A Jun-feng Wang
%A Chao Wang
%J Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B
%V 17
%N 8
%P 628-639
%@ 1673-1581
%D 2016
%I Zhejiang University Press & Springer
%DOI 10.1631/jzus.B1500154

TY - JOUR
T1 - Emergy assessment of three home courtyard agriculture production systems in Tibet Autonomous Region, China
A1 - Fa-chun Guan
A1 - Zhi-peng Sha
A1 - Yu-yang Zhang
A1 - Jun-feng Wang
A1 - Chao Wang
J0 - Journal of Zhejiang University Science B
VL - 17
IS - 8
SP - 628
EP - 639
%@ 1673-1581
Y1 - 2016
PB - Zhejiang University Press & Springer
ER -
DOI - 10.1631/jzus.B1500154


Abstract: 
home courtyard agriculture is an important model of agricultural production on the Tibetan plateau. Because of the sensitive and fragile plateau environment, it needs to have optimal performance characteristics, including high sustainability, low environmental pressure, and high economic benefit. emergy analysis is a promising tool for evaluation of the environmental-economic performance of these production systems. In this study, emergy analysis was used to evaluate three courtyard agricultural production models: raising Geese in Corn Fields (RGICF), conventional Corn Planting (CCP), and pea-Wheat Rotation (PWR). The results showed that the RGICF model produced greater economic benefits, and had higher sustainability, lower environmental pressure, and higher product safety than the CCP and PWR models. The emergy yield ratio (EYR) and emergy self-support ratio (ESR) of RGICF were 0.66 and 0.11, respectively, lower than those of the CCP production model, and 0.99 and 0.08, respectively, lower than those of the PWR production model. The impact of RGICF (1.45) on the environment was lower than that of CCP (2.26) and PWR (2.46). The emergy sustainable indices (ESIs) of RGICF were 1.07 and 1.02 times higher than those of CCP and PWR, respectively. With regard to the emergy index of product safety (EIPS), RGICF had a higher safety index than those of CCP and PWR. Overall, our results suggest that the RGICF model is advantageous and provides higher environmental benefits than the CCP and PWR systems.

西藏三种庭院生产体系的能值评价

目的:利用能值方法评价西藏三种庭院生产体系的生产效率、环境效益、可持续性以及经济效益。
创新点:利用能值方法,首次对近年流行的新型农牧一体化生产模式("玉米田养鹅"),以及西藏常规庭院生产体系"豌豆–小麦轮作"和"常规玉米连作"进行生态与生产效益的全面评价,明确适宜西藏可持续发展的庭院生产技术体系。
方法:以两年(2012和2013)作为时间单元,记录期间各庭院生产体系物质的投入和产出。各生产体系中所有投入和产出的物质与各物质相对的转化系数即单位能值价值(UEV)相乘转换为太阳能值(sej),各物质的UEV统一全球驱动能值在15.20×1024 sej/year的基准上。利用"可新比例"划分各投入物质的可更新和不可更新的部分,并计算相应的能值指标(能值产出率、能值自给率、环境负载率、可持续性指标以及农产品安全指标等),从而通过能值指标和经济效益的分析来评价各庭院生产体系的生态与经济效益。
结论:本研究中"玉米田养鹅"具有卓越的生态–经济效益,"豌豆–小麦轮作"次之,而"常规玉米连作"可持续性低且环境负载较大。

关键词:庭院农业;玉米田养鹅;传统玉米种植;豌豆–小麦轮作;能值;可持续性

Darkslateblue:Affiliate; Royal Blue:Author; Turquoise:Article

Reference

[1]Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 1997. Emergy-based indices and ratios to evaluate sustainability: monitoring economies and technology toward environmentally sound innovation. Ecol. Eng., 9(1-2):51-69.

[2]Campbell, D.E., 2001. Proposal for including what is valuable to ecosystems in environmental assessments. Environ. Sci. Technol., 35(14):2867-2873.

[3]Campbell, D.E., Ohrt, A., 2009. Environmental accounting using emergy: evaluation of Minnesota. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, p.71-73

[4]Castellini, C., Bastianoni, S., Granai, C., et al., 2006. Sustainability of poultry production using the emergy approach: comparison of conventional and organic rearing systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 114(2-4):343-350.

[5]Cavalett, O., Queiroz, J.F.D., Ortega, E., 2006. Emergy assessment of integrated production systems of grains, pig and fish in small farms in the South Brazil. Ecol. Model., 193(3-4):205-224.

[6]Chen, G.Q., Jiang, M.M., Chen, B., et al., 2006. Emergy analysis of Chinese agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 115(1-4):161-173.

[7]Chen, X., Wang, Z.Q., Tang, J.Z., 2000. The ecological functions of weed biodiversity in agro-ecosystem. Chin. J. Ecol., 19(4):50-52 (in Chinese).

[8]Coppola, F., Bastianoni, S., Østergard, H., 2009. Sustainability of bioethanol production from wheat with recycled residues as evaluated by emergy assessment. Biomass Bioenerg., 33(11):1626-1642.

[9]Feng, T.T., Cheng, S.K., Min, Q.W., et al., 2009. Productive use of bioenergy for rural household in ecological fragile area, Panam County, Tibet in China: the case of the residential biogas model. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 13(8):2070-2078.

[10]Fernandes, E.C.M., Nair, P.K.R., 1986. An evaluation of the structure and function of tropical home gardens. Agric. Syst., 21(4):279-310.

[11]Guan, F.C., Tian, F.P., Sha, Z.P., et al., 2013a. Contribution of goose feeding space and production effects on the different. J. China Agric. Univ., 18(4):129-133 (in Chinese).

[12]Guan, F.C., Sha, Z.P., Wang, J.F., et al., 2013b. Growth and development of goose under different spatiotemporal characteristics. Acta Agrest. Sin., 21(6):1208-1213 (in Chinese).

[13]Hu, Q.H., Zhang, L.X., Wang, C.B., 2011. Emergy-based analysis of two chicken farming systems: a perspective of organic production model in China. Acta Ecol. Sin., 31(23):7227-7234 (in Chinese).

[14]Jose, D., Shanmugaratnam, N., 1993. Traditional home gardens of Kerala: a sustainable human ecosystem. Agroforest. Syst., 24(2):203-213.

[15]la Rosa, A.D., Siracusa, G., Cavallaro, R., 2008. Emergy evaluation of Sicilian red orange production. A comparison between organic and conventional farming. J. Clean. Prod., 16(17):1907-1914.

[16]Lan, S.F., Qin, P., Lu, H.F., 2002. Emergy Assessment of Eco-ecological Systems. Chemical Industry Press, Beijing, China, p.75, 76, 406, 412 (in Chinese).

[17]Li, D.M., 2011. Initial analysis for water and soil moving distribution and its damage and difficulty of management in Tibet. Tibet’s Sci. Technol., 1:21-24 (in Chinese).

[18]Liu, G., Lucas, M., Shen, L., 2008. Rural household energy consumption and its impacts on eco-environment in Tibet: taking Taktse County as an example. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 12(7):1890-1908.

[19]Liu, G.Y., Yang, Z.Y., Chen, B., et al., 2015. Scenarios for sewage sludge reduction and reuse in clinker production towards regional eco-industrial development: a comparative emergy-based assessment. J. Clean. Prod., 103:371-383.

[20]Lu, H.F., Bai, Y., Ren, H., et al., 2010. Integrated emergy, energy and economic evaluation of rice and vegetable production systems in alluvial paddy fields: implications for agricultural policy in China. J. Environ. Manag., 91(12):2727-2735.

[21]Lu, H.F., Yuan, Y.G., Campbell, D.E., et al., 2014. Integrated water quality, emergy and economic evaluation of three bioremediation treatment systems for eutrophic water. Ecol. Eng., 69:244-254.

[22]Mao, Z.Y., 1997. Fertilizer. China Agriculture Press, Beijing, p.321.

[23]Munyanziza, E., Kehri, H.K., Bagyaraj, D.J., 1997. Agricultural intensification, soil biodiversity and agro-ecosystem function in the tropics: the role of mycorrhiza in crops and threes. Appl. Soil Ecol., 6(1):77-85.

[24]Norfolk, O., Eichhorn, M.P., Gilbert, F., 2013. Traditional agricultural gardens conserve wild plants and functional richness in arid South Sinai. Basic Appl. Ecol., 14(8):659-669.

[25]Odum, H.T., 1983. Systems Ecology. Wiley, New York.

[26]Odum, H.T., 1988. Self-organization, transformity, and information. Science, 242(4882):1132-1139.

[27]Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. Wiley, New York.

[28]Odum, H.T., 2007. Environment, Power, and Society for the 21st Century. Columbia University Press, New York.

[29]Ortega, E., Cavalett, O., Bonifacio, R., et al., 2005. Brazilian soybean production: emergy analysis with an expanded scope. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc., 25(4):323-334.

[30]Paltridge, N., Tao, J., Unkovich, M., et al., 2009. Agriculture in central Tibet: an assessment of climate, farming systems, and strategies to boost production. Crop Past. Sci., 60(7):627-639.

[31]Paltridge, N.G., Grover, S.P.P., Liu, G.Y., et al., 2011. Soils, crop nutrient status and nutrient dynamics on small-holder farms in central Tibet, China. Plant Soil, 348(1-2):219-229.

[32]Pizzigallo, A.C.I., Granai, C., Borsa, S., 2008. The joint use of LCA and emergy evaluation for the analysis of two Italian wine farms. J. Environ. Manag., 86(2):396-406.

[33]Roose, E., Ndayizigiye, F., 1997. Agroforestry, water and soil fertility management to fight erosion in tropical mountains of Rwanda. Soil. Technol., 11(1):109-119.

[34]Sha, Z.P., Wang, J.F., Guan, F.C., 2014. The agri-pastoral compound ecosystem of southeast Tibet—analysis of biodiversity and economic benefits of raising geese in cornfields. Acta Agrest. Sin., 22(1):214-216 (in Chinese).

[35]Sinclair, T.R., Bai, Q., 1997. Analysis of high wheat yields in northwest China. Agric. Syst., 53(4):373-385.

[36]Tao, J., Fu, M.C., Zheng, X.Q., 2013. Provincial level-based emergy evaluation of crop production system and development modes in China. Ecol. Indic., 29:325-338.

[37]Tashi, N., Yanhua, L., Partap, T., 2002. Making Tibet food secure: assessment of scenarios. ICIMOD, Kathmandu.

[38]TSY (Tibet Bureau of Statistics), 2007. Tibet Statistical Yearbook 2007. China Statistical, Beijing.

[39]Ulgiati, S., Odum, H.T., Bastianoni, S., 1994. Emergy use, environmental loading and sustainability. An emergy analysis of Italy. Ecol. Model., 73(3-4):215-268.

[40]Vassallo, P., Beiso, I., Bastianoni, B., et al., 2009. Dynamic emergy evaluation of a fish farm rearing process. J. Environ. Manag., 90(8):2699-2708.

[41]Wang, L., He, Q., 2015. The evaluation of groundwater resources value of Beijing based on emergy theory. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng., 2015:1-9.

[42]Wang, X.H., 2014. Sustainable development in Tibet requires control of agricultural nonpoint pollution. Environ. Sci. Technol., 48(16):8944-8945.

[43]Wu, X.H., Wu, F.Q., Tong, X.G., et al., 2013. Emergy-based sustainability assessment of an integrated production system of cattle, biogas, and greenhouse vegetables: insight into the comprehensive utilization of wastes on a large-scale farm in northwest China. Ecol. Eng., 61:335-344.

[44]Wyss, E., 1996. The effects of artificial weed strips on diversity and abundance of the arthropod fauna in a Swiss experimental apple orchard. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 60(1):47-59.

[45]Xi, Y.G., Qin, P., 2009. Emergy evaluation of organic rice-duck mutualism system. Ecol. Eng., 35(11):1677-1683.

[46]Yang, J., Chen, B., 2014. Emergy analysis of a biogas-linked agricultural system in rural China—a case study in Gongcheng Yao Autonomous County. Appl. Energ., 118:173-182.

[47]Zeng, X.S., Lu, H.F., Campbell, D.E., et al., 2013. Integrated emergy and economic evaluation of tea production chains in Anxi, China. Ecol. Eng., 60:354-362.

[48]Zhang, L.X., Yang, Z.F., Chen, G.Q., 2007. Emergy analysis of cropping–grazing system in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China. Energ. Policy, 35(7):3843-3855.

[49]Zhang, X.H., Wei, Y., Li, M., et al., 2014. Emergy evaluation of an integrated livestock wastewater treatment system. Resour. Conserv. Recy., 92:95-107.

[50]Zhang, Y.Y., Sha, Z.P., Guan, F.C., et al., 2014a. Effect of raising geese in cornfield on ecological characteristics of weed community. Biodivers. Sci., 22(4):492-501 (in Chinese).

[51]Zhang, Y.Y., Wang, J.F., Sha, Z.P., et al., 2014b. Weeds biodiversity and maize growth in agro-pastoral integration system. J. Zhejiang Univ. (Agric. & Life Sci.), 40(6):638-646 (in Chinese).

Open peer comments: Debate/Discuss/Question/Opinion

<1>

Please provide your name, email address and a comment





Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE, 38 Zheda Road, Hangzhou 310027, China
Tel: +86-571-87952783; E-mail: cjzhang@zju.edu.cn
Copyright © 2000 - Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE